I said:
Once it's removed from the BNF, I think we need to make sure that the
Scheme specifically checks for it and forbids it. That way, people won't
accidentally use such constructs for now, and that'll make it easier to
add later if indeed it's added later.
Alan Manuel Gloria:
I
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
Alan Manuel Gloria:
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* (^_^)
Absolutely!
On 2/19/13, Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin c...@users.sf.net wrote:
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
let
!!$ x
!!compute 'x
y
!!compute 'y
!!use x y
==
let
INDENT INDENT x ; stack: (0 2 ?)
INDENT compute 'x ; stack: (0 2 ? 6)
DEDENT ; stack: (0 2 ?), indentation = 4
y ; stack: (0 2 4)
INDENT compute 'y ; stack (0 2 4 6)
DEDENT DEDENT ; stack (0 2)
use x y
DEDENT
==
let
Okay, okay, currently:
let
$ x $ compute 'x
use x
==
(let
((x (compute 'x))
(use x))
So, let's try the new formulation:
let
!!$ x $ compute 'x
!!use x
==
let
INDENT INDENT x INDENT compute 'x ; stack: (0 2 ? ?)
DEDENT DEDENT ; stack: (0 2), indentation = 2
use x
DEDENT
===
let
