> 6. Proposal: Should ENTER ENTER no longer end an expression? > > I don't like this one. The current behavior is to end expressions with ENTER > ENTER, and I think this one is REALLY REALLY important. My earlier > experiments without that showed that failure to support this was REALLY > confusing. I think as long as comment-only lines (possibly preceded with > indents) are completely ignored, and thus can be used to separate contents, > we should be okay. >
Agreed. Note that a slight modification of SPLICE rules allows the REPL user to use ENTER BACKSLASH ENTER to signal the end of an expression (but we must be careful how we define SPLICE-at-the-start - in particular, (i-expr lvl) -> SPLICE eol-comment-lines (starting-indent lvl) (i-expr lvl)), regardless of whether blank lines are ignored or considered as term terminators. Still, ENTER ENTER is easier to turn to a mental tic than ENTER BACKSLASH ENTER. Haskell solves this problem (it allows empty lines within expressions) by restricting the REPL to one-liner expressions (as an extension GHC has a special command to input multiline expressions, which are terminated by } IIRC). But Haskell focuses on purity, so functions cannot be practically redefined, and is primarily a file-centric language; the habit is to put any long expressions you want to test as functions in the file you are testing, and to modify those functions in an editor and reload the file when you want to change them. Sincerely, AmkG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
