On 1/11/13, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote:
> I said:
>> > 2. In an earlier email discussion we discussed how to interpret
>> > "(head|empty) DOLLAR comment_eol"; the current BNF production reflects
>> > that. However, I'm now leaning toward making that be an error.
>
> John Cowan:
>> I agree again. I think it's very important not to fall into the trap
>> of "Well, this syntax has no current meaning, but I see how it could
>> possibly mean X, so let's make it mean X." In such situations, I think
>> it is far better for the syntax in question to be an error. If every
>> possible syntax is meaningful, then there is no hope of intuitive error
>> detection, still less error correction, an important property of a truly
>> readable syntax.
>
> Yes indeed.
>
> I think unless Alan Manuel K. Gloria (or someone else) makes a strong case
> for keeping things as-is, "DOLLAR comment_eol" is going away.
> We should document this (and why) in the SRFI, whatever ends up happening.
Not gonna (^^)v. As I originally conceived, DOLLAR is supposed to be used:
foo $ bar nitz $ quux fobar
-->
(foo (bar nitz (quux fobar)))
or even:
define foo(bar) $ cond
{ bar < 42 } $ begin
do-bar-less-than-42 bar
whatever
else $ begin
do-bar-greater-than-42 bar
whatnot
I can't really conceive of a use of $ at the end of the line.
Sincerely,
AmkG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
