At Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:39:37 +0800, almkglor wrote: > Macros were not standard until R4RS, either (although most Scheme systems > pre-R4RS did have a Common Lisp-like unhygienic macro system). A better
I did not know that… I had thought that lisps had macros from very early on. > > 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. That’s right, yes… I think it hurts clarity (you cannot see at one glance whether the define is part of the module or not), but I can see the convenience advantage for maintaining the code. Can the module reuse defines outside the module to avoid that? Best wishes, Arne ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
