On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:38 AM, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: >> 2.3 remove SPLICE inline rule >> That may be NG. The reason for the SPLICE-at-the-start and >> SPLICE-inline rules is to support the following Arc syntax, and CL keywords: >> >> (if >> (cond1) >> (exp1) >> (cond2) >> (exp2) >> (exp-else)) >> >> (foo >> :foo-stuff (exp1) >> :bar-stuff (exp2)) > > Right. The goal is come up with a single syntax that makes common cases > easy, and I really want it to be fundamentally the same across different > LISPs. > >> By the SPLICE-at-the-start and SPLICE-inline rules, we can express it as: >> >> if >> ..(cond1) >> ..\ (exp1) >> ..(cond2) >> ..\ (exp2) >> ..\ (exp-else) > > Hmm, that wasn't my intended meaning.
HUH?? It used to be! xref: from: David A. Wheeler dwhee...@dwheeler.com via lists.sourceforge.net reply-to: dwhee...@dwheeler.com to: readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net date: Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:14 AM subject: Re: [Readable-discuss] Spliced information - any better ideas? mailing list: readable-discuss.lists.sourceforge.net Filter messages from this mailing list mailed-by: lists.sourceforge.net unsubscribe: Unsubscribe from this mailing-list > ; When condition1, dothis1, etc. are lengthy, you can do this: > if > (condition1) > \ (dothis1) > (condition2) > \ (dothis2) > (default) > > ; When condition1, dothis1, etc. are short, you can do this: > if > (condition1) \ (dothis1) > (condition2) \ (dothis2) > (default) By implication, I thought you were saying that both were supposed to be the same. ....so why the change? I agreed to the splice rules, as well as the GROUP = SPLICE proposal, because of this. If you're changing the meaning of GROUP from the meaning as expressed by Egil, then GROUP = SPLICE breaks. > My interpretation of that expression > would be this, because "\" at the beginning of a line means "wrap () around > it": > (if (cond1) ((exp1)) ( (cond2) ((exp2)) ((exp-else)))) > > I would instead write this "if" example as: > if > ..(cond1) \ (exp1) > ..(cond2) \ (exp2) > ..(exp-else) > >> foo >> ..:foo-stuff \ (exp1) >> ..:bar-stuff \ (exp2) > > Here we agree on the intended meaning. > > By the way, these "periods at the beginning of the line" do make the > code easier to read when you're quoting on a system that strips out front > whitespace. I wonder if we should allow leading periods as an alternative > to whitespace (?) when indentation is significant. I can't think > of a case where leading periods are actually used for symbol names. > As long as they're not FORCED they might be useful. What do you think? LOL. MAYBE. > > (In general, I'm trying to think outside of the box. 99% of the ideas > might be stupid, but if in the journey we find good stuff, then great!) > > --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
