> Pros: > > 1. It is useful for cases when we need to send code snippets by HTML > e-mail transport, which tends to cut off "real" whitespace. > 2. It can be used to highlight indentation for whatever purpose that may > serve. > > Cons: > > 1. It prevents us from using "." for the proposed GROUP - basically, > it prevents any syntax from using "." at the start of a line (it > shouldn't prevent the symbol from being used within or at the end of a line)
Agree. Obviously, if we use "." for the group, this idea dies instantly. There's also: 2. It complicates using symbols beginning with "."; some escape mechanism like "(. .mysymbol)" or "\.mysymbol" must be used. Few people use symbols beginning with '.'. 3. It's different from any other indentation system, which makes it less familiar, and some may reject it because it's so "unusual". > My vote is "Maybe". That's where I am too. If we don't use "." as the GROUP symbol, we might try allowing for a little while (as an experiment) and feel free to use it in email. We can easily drop it later, if we make it clear this is an "experimental" feature. So I'm of a mind to give it a whirl for a little while, even if it's slightly crazy. It looks especially useful for discussing syntax in email, so it might play the role of "scaffolding" - helping us do the rest, and then we remove it when we're done. All of this is moot if we use "." as the GROUP symbol; then this dies instantly. --- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
