> Alan Manuel Gloria: > > xref. Arne Babenhauserheide's concept, I'm proposing that we steal his > > extended PERIOD notation and add it into sweet-expressions.
> > <* define-library \\ (srfi 41 primitive) > > > > export > > . stream-cons stream-null > > . stream-pair? stream-null? stream? > > . stream-car stream-cdr > > . stream-lambda The problem is that this isn't hard to write as-is without this capability. The same email showed . (...), and I showed: > <* define-library \\ (srfi 41 primitive) > > export > stream-cons \\ stream-null > stream-pair? \\ stream-null? \\ stream? > stream-car \\ stream-cdr > stream-lambda > *> Another approach, if you hate all the \\s, is to just use functional notation: <* define-library \\ (srfi 41 primitive) export( stream-cons stream-null stream-pair? stream-null? stream? stream-car stream-cdr stream-lambda ) *> If a common construct is hard to use, then we need to deal with it. But it's not at all clear that this is the case. Long lists of values do happen occasionally (there's one in sweeten.sscm), but it appears that we can handle that case already. The ".-continuation" lines do add the ability to easily have indentation-based constructs in the middle of a list of items that are not. But splitting with "\\" also gives us the same capability, and if it's just a long-and-boring list where indentation isn't needed, function call notation (directly or using ".") lets you do this already in a very simple way. What's more, I think the "." continuations run the risk of confusion; the leading "." connects to its PARENT, which may be far above, but I think a lot of readers will be confused into thinking that it connects to the previous line instead. Finally, it's yet another syntactic construct and I'd like to limit syntactic constructs. So I propose not adding this at this time. I think we could easily add this capability later without hurting backward compatibility, if that turns out to be a bad decision. Currently the notation supports ". x" as a synonym for "x", which is consistent with this .-continuation. But I can be definitely influenced on this case, especially if we can find many examples where this leading "." continuation really is common and hard to do without. Can anyone point out many such cases? --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
