On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have an idea I'd like to float to see if there are reasons why it's > a bad idea. > > What if Clojure had an alternate "surface" syntax that was translated > into standard Clojure syntax by a kind of preprocessor?
Do you by any chance mean "custom reader" when you say "preprocessor"? :) > > Many people that don't like Lisp dialects don't like them because of > the parentheses. I'm trying to address that. How many of those have spend enough time with a lisp to form a valid opinion of the syntax? There are many programming languages who's syntax looks ugly to the eye that do not understand its meaning. > > Here's a simple example of valid Clojure code. > > (defn pig-latin [word] > (let [first-letter (first word)] > (if (.contains "aeiou" (str first-letter)) > (str word "ay") > (str (subs word 1) first-letter "ay")))) > > (println (pig-latin "red")) > (println (pig-latin "orange")) > > Here's what that same code would look like in my alternate syntax. > > defn pig-latin [word] > let [first-letter (first word)] > if .contains "aeiou" (str first-letter) > str word "ay" > str (subs word 1) first-letter "ay" > > println (pig-latin "red") > println (pig-latin "orange") > > The rules for turning this into standard Clojure syntax are pretty simple. > > 1) If a line is indented farther than the previous one, it is part of > the previous line. > 2) If a line doesn't start with a (, then add one. > 3) If the next line is indented less than this one, add the > appropriate number of )'s at the end. > 4) If the first token on a line is "if" and the first non-whitespace > character after it is not ( > then assume the rest of the line is the condition and wrap it in ( ). Rule 4 is a special case that introduces inconsistency. I am against it. The syntax is basically introducing implicit parenthesis based on indentation. I have been pondering this idea as well, but decided that Clojure already goes so easy on the parenthesis, that it wasn't worth my time to persue it any further. > > A translation from standard Clojure syntax to this alternate form > should also be possible. > > Is this a bad idea? It is not inherently bad, but I doubt that a lot of people would prefer it as their primary reader over the standard Clojure reader. It could, on the other hand, find a nice niche in DSLs, for programs that need some level of scriptability by people who cannot be expected to be lisp savvy. > > -- > R. Mark Volkmann > Object Computing, Inc. > > > > -- Venlig hilsen / Kind regards, Christian Vest Hansen. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
