On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:50:45 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> wrote: > > > Also despite the different focus we chose, I consider you folks to be the > > > experts on indentation-sensitive lisp, so I would be very happy to get > > > your opinion. > > > > > > > > > http://draketo.de/proj/wisp/srfi.html
I didn't have a lot of time, but I took a few minutes & hope my comments help. I don't think that wisp "supercedes" SRFI-105 or SRFI-110; I would instead say it describes an "alternative to". Indeed, I suspect a system could simultaneously use SRFI-105 and wisp. "SRFI-110 improves a lot over the implementation of SRFI-49 and resolves the group-naming by introducing 3 different grouping-syntaxes ($, \\ and <* *>). These additional syntax-elements however hurt readability for newcomers a lot. They make some code written in SRFI-110 look quite similar to perl and bash:" I don't agree that they "hurt readability" at all, indeed, I think they help. I suggest changing this (and elsewhere) to something like "The author believes that these additional syntax elements impede readability because...". Also, I know both perl and bash, and the resulting code doesn't look anything like either. The "$" stuff looks like Haskell, if anything. The spec overview in 4.1 needs to clearly define *what* each syntax element does, at least as a basic case. Examples are great for clarifying definitions, but do not *replace* them. E.G., "A lone period at the beginning of a line (after any indentation) causes that line to continue the previous line." Or something like that. s/synatx/syntax/ I would move "justification" to separate section. Users often don't care WHY something is so... they just need to know what it is. I obviously agree that a better homoiconic syntax is needed for Lisp. I also obviously don't agree that the choices you've made are the best ones, since I made different choices :-). A few comments, though, besides ones already made. I have concerns that lone ":" is actually *widely* used for other purposes, e.g., type declarations, that this syntax interferes with. Similarly, "_" has many uses on its own. I think it'd be wise to grab a bunch of code and try to reformat it this way. I did that a *LOT* to create SRFI-110; a lot of syntax that SEEMS like a good idea doesn't actually work well with real code. And while simplicity is a *great* goal, too simple is its own problem. All we *really* need is 1 and 0; anything else is extraneous syntax :-). --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
