Okay, okay, currently:
let
$ x $ compute 'x
use x
==>
(let
((x (compute 'x))
(use x))
So, let's try the new formulation:
let
!!$ x $ compute 'x
!!use x
==>
let
INDENT INDENT x INDENT compute 'x ; stack: (0 2 ? ?)
DEDENT DEDENT ; stack: (0 2), indentation = 2
use x
DEDENT
===>
let
!\\
!!x
!!!compute 'x
!use x
So it works right even in the degenerate case.
But it doesn't *extend* the way it might be naively expected, as seen
in the previous posts:
let
$ x $ compute 'x
y $ compute 'y
use x y
==>
let
!\\
!!x
!!!compute 'x
!!!!y
!!!!!compute 'y
!use x y
---
Hmm.
I wonder if, however, using a similar approach for ENLIST rather than
SUBLIST would work???
Sincerely,
AmkG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
