dwheeler mentioned the use of "\" for the GROUP character. It happens to
be the same as the SPLICE character. My initial instinct is that this is a
non-breaking change, i.e. using the same character for both will not break
things, as long as we remove the SPLICE-at-the-eol rule (i.e. only allow
SPLICE at the start or in the middle of things). This means that the
"GROUP" meaning of the character is not ambiguous with SPLICE-at-the-eol -
remember, a "\" on a line by itself is either GROUP eol or SPLICE eol.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At Wed, 23 May 2012 12:54:18 -0400 (EDT),
> David A Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > Alpheus Madsen <alpheus.mad...@gmail.com>
> > > One thought I've been wanting to experiment with, but haven't had the
> time to attempt to implement, is to use a double-indent to indicate groups.
> >
> > I think that's even worse. It's very unreadable. It's also ambiguous
> for the first indent; does "two spaces" mean an indent of two spaces, or a
> double-indent for one-space indenting?
>
> Using double indent had also been my first idea, but I discarded it,
> because the meaning of the double indent would not be obvious without the
> less-indented line which comes later - it would be ambigous.
>
> example:
>
> (let
> ((a b)(c d))
> (e))
>
> becomes
>
> let
> a b
> c d
> e
>
> Imagine 5 let arguments and you cannot know anymore if it’s
> double-indented.
>
> Compare
>
> let
> .
> a b
> c d
> e
>
> The reason why I chose the . is to avoid adding any new syntax elements. .
> is already used to create cons-cels, but it has little use on its own:
>
> (if (equal (. (quote "abc")) (quote "abc")) t)
>
> ; this syntax would be invalid with the .-notation.
> if
> equal
> .
> quote "abc"
> quote "abc"
> t
>
> Also I like about the . that it is so small: It is almost like double
> indent, but explicit. And it scales:
>
> (a (((((b c))))))
> →
> a
> .
> .
> .
> .
> b c
>
> here it is explicit what happens, even though the code is evil.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne
>
> PS: Only answering now, because I we just moved, so I was overloaded for
> quite some time.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Readable-discuss mailing list
> Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
