> > a
> >   .
> >     b → do a double bracket
> > . b → pure syntactic sugar to give the code a stronger structure.
> 
> a
>  SPLIT
>   b  => (a (b))
> 
> SPLIT b => b
> 
> What isn't compatible is:
> 
> > a . b → construct a cons-cel
> 
> since:
> 
> a SPLIT b
> 
> is two expressions, a followed by b
> 
> Instead, your proposal is:
> 
> > a \ b → split a line in two
> > a \
> >   b → avoid a linebreak.
> 
> So, using my terminology, your position is:

I would not call it “position”, yet. Rather an idea.

> 1.  Use GROUP = ".", with the addition that GROUP-inline now means
> "form a cons cell" (in the original rules, GROUP-inline was
> meaningless and represented the symbol used by itself),

(a . b) is the original syntax for forming a cons-cel, at least in
emacs lisp. So this is a restriction on the use of the . (the reason
why it cannot be used inline). So group-inline would still just mean
the symbol itself.

Addition: GROUP at the beginning means indent without meaning in the language.

> 2.  Use SPLICE = "\", with the removal of the SPLICE-at-the-beginning
> rule (and the retention of the SPLICE-inline and SPLICE-at-the-eol
> rule).

Jepp.

Best wishes,
Arne

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to