On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de>wrote:
> 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…
>
Macros were not standard until R4RS, either (although most Scheme systems
pre-R4RS did have a Common Lisp-like unhygienic macro system). A better
way would be to make a function that displays multiple values, but if you
start doing that, you'll start wanting the full (format ...) anyway, so you
either choose to write out a bunch of (display x) ... forms, or
re-implementing (format ...)
>
> 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.
>
> Yes, indeed, but :
> > 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?
>
Err, that would have to be in *patch*, not in diff. But it would mess up
the indentation afterwards if you applied an indented patch into an
unindented source (entirely new lines in the code would be indented more
than their surroundings) or vice versa. So it's less ideal for the
maintainer, since applying patches becomes more complex. Simpler to just
start all defines at indent 0, and for code in a module-is-one-datum
system, just wrap all the defines in the module annotation without
disturbing their indentations.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne
> --
> 1w6 sie zu achten,
> sie alle zu finden,
> in Spiele zu leiten
> und sacht zu verbinden.
> → http://1w6.org
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
