Brian Hulley wrote:
Whoever thought up the original Haskell layout rule assumed that people
would be happy using a single fixed width font, tabs set to 8 spaces,
and didn't care about the brittleness of the code (in the face of
identifier renamings) it allowed one to write.
Are you complaining that Haskell permits you to write code with these
problems, or that it requires you to? The latter is not true. Instead of
keyword clause1
clause2
you can always write
keyword
clause1
clause2
or
keyword { clause1
; clause2
}
Both styles are insensitive to tab width and renaming of identifiers. The
off-side rule only comes into play when you don't include an explicit {, so
you can suppress it entirely if you prefer.
If you have a different layout rule in mind I'd be interested in hearing it,
but I think Haskell's is quite good overall. Lisp has similar indentation
problems despite the lack of a layout rule, since people commonly write
(foo (...)
(...))
Renaming foo can't confuse the compiler, but I've never had a Haskell layout
error change the meaning of my program. At worst it causes the program to be
rejected.
I do edit my source code in a fixed-width font, but it's a very pretty font
(Bitstream Vera Sans Mono). It's a small price to pay for the convenience of
being able to use 2D layout, even in languages where it's not significant,
and in comments.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
