Hi Alan, Thank you for your answer!
Am Dienstag, 16. April 2013, 06:27:21 schrieb Alan Manuel Gloria:
> > old: would not be written like that (though you can)…
> >
> > begin
> > . (display "Welcome, ") (display player) (display ", to Chicago!")
> > (newline)
> >
> > but rather like this:
> >
> > begin
> > display "Welcome, "
> > display player
> > display ", to Chicago!"
> > newline
> >
> >
> Actually, some Lisp programmers may prefer the former; (display something)
> (newline) is idiomatic in Scheme since (format ) was not standardized until
> an SRFI, and may not be available (and so displaying something on a line by
> itself is better put in a single physical line in code, hence the (display
> foo) (newline) all-on-a-line idiom. Also note that because (format ...)
> was late in standardization, many would prefer to put a sequence of
> (display ...) forms on a single physical line).
That feels pretty strange for me. The first thing I though there was to write a
macro which displays multiple values…
So I did not think about that, but it’s quite possible, that this will disturb
some. I hope that others will appreciate the clarity…
What I would do in Emacs Lisp:
defmacro show : &rest args
cons 'progn
loop for arg in args collect
list 'message : list 'number-to-string arg
> In Scheme, usually you just put a bunch of definitions (unindented) in a
> file, then load them in your favorite Scheme system. After you've hacked
> on the definitions on the file a bit, *then* you put the module
> annotations. This is largely the rationale for (include ...) in R7RS
> (define-library ...) forms: the expected Scheme workflow is to start with a
> bunch of top-level, non-module definitions, hack on them until they work,
> then put them in a module. Hence, support for a bunch of unindented
> definitions inside a module would be nice.
To me statically indenting a block of code seems quite simple - at least Emacs
does it in a blink, and I assume vim likewise.
> different segments of their users - including patches. By keeping their
> published code unindented, such a maintainer could apply the same patch,
> from say a primarily-Guile user, to both the official Guile and MzScheme
> code.
Can’t they simply use the “ignore whitespace change” options to diff?
Best wishes,
Arne
--
1w6 sie zu achten,
sie alle zu finden,
in Spiele zu leiten
und sacht zu verbinden.
→ http://1w6.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account! http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
