xref. Arne Babenhauserheide's concept, I'm proposing that we steal his extended PERIOD notation and add it into sweet-expressions.
Basically: foo . x ==> (foo x) ...which is currently what we have. However, the extended PERIOD notation is: foo . x y ==> (foo x y) ... in contrast to: foo x y ==> (foo (x y)) -- For interaction with existing notations: foo . x $ y z $ w ==> foo . x (y z w) ==> (foo x (y z w)) -- foo . x \\ y z \\ w ==> foo . x y z w ==> (foo x (y z) w) ---- This is useful in some cases: <* define-library \\ (srfi 41 primitive) export . stream-cons stream-null . stream-pair? stream-null? stream? . stream-car stream-cdr . stream-lambda .... -- However, for the above case the current sweet-expressions can also express this: <* define-library \\ (srfi 41 primitive) export . ( stream-cons stream-null stream-pair? stream-null? stream? stream-car stream-cdr stream-lambda ) ... The question, really, is: Sometimes people write multiple short arguments to a form all on a single line, in order to reduce vertical space. However, such a line can be expressed using the existing . ( ... ) form (see "export" example above). Arguably, the existing ". ( ... )" form is esoteric, and "( )" disables ! indentation inside it. Should we support the new extended PERIOD notation? AmkG: will support, will not push ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
