On 2/25/13, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote:
> Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin:
>> Here is yet another idea for opening multiple levels on one line, that
>> does
>> NOT involve column counting, only comparison of leading whitespaces.
>> It's a backward-compatible extension to SUBLIST (similarly applicable to
>> any competing FOOLIST semantics), so we could leave it undecided for now,
>> and legalize it later.
>> $ lets one open an inner list on one line, but currently it's only usable
>> when this list is the last element of the containing list:
>> outer1 outer2 $ inner1
>> ! inner2
>> You cannot express (outer1 outer2 (inner1 inner2) outer3)
>> without giving up on use of $.
>> The proposal is to allow an unmatched dedent after inner2, and have that
>> return you to the outer level:
> ...
> Note: I earlier replied with a variant idea with subject
> "$ at end of line bug?", but Alan Manuel Gloria
> noted, "shouldn't we be discussing this on
> Beni's proposal thread?" so I'll continue on THIS thread instead.
> Sorry for the confusion...
> As noted earlier, this is an interesting proposal, but
> I have a variety of concerns with it.
> Alan Manuel Gloria:
>> I think that, conceptually, having a limitation is an additional
>> complication when teaching the notation.
> ...
>> I'd rather have the full Beni formulation of SUBLIST or the classic
>> 0.4 formulation, in that preference order.
> Okay.
> If that's so, and no one else speaks up, perhaps we should
> just continue to use the classic formulation.  I'm fine with that;
> we know that works well, and I think it's well-specified.

Awww..... (^.^)v

Since you're unwilling to put the full Beni formulation in *right
now*, then let's use classic formulation. I hope somebody else speaks
up for the full Beni formulation and gives a fully interesting example
*real soon now* (^_^)

> We could ensure that nothing we do now *forbids* later
> extending it this way, and document this as a potential future extension.
> That would keep our options open.  Sound reasonable?
> Per the email quote above, Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin was fine with
> not specifying at this time as long as we didn't close the door to it,
> and this would be consistent with it.

I volunteer to write up the Beni formulation for the SRFI-sweet
document - unless Beni wants to write it up himself.

> Should we allow "$" at the end without partial dedents (creating an extra
> ()),
> or should we just drop that too?

I don't see a use for it, but I see no harm in specifying it that way.

Note that:




which is both non-obvious and not something I see as *useful*.  So
raising an error is fine with me too.


Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
Readable-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to