On 7/18/12, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: > We can already handle improper lists as "(a . b)" or "a(. b)". > > In the past, we've also been able to express improper lists using > indentation processing: > foo > a > . > b > > When I added the trivial support for "." as an indentation character, I > unintentionally disabled the ability to express improper lists during > indentation. I don't think this is hard to restore; we just need to NOT > consider "." as an indentation character if it precedes newline. My earlier > proposed rule that "." is only an indentation character when followed by > space or newline would, as a side-effect, have the same effect.
How often do we need it, and would using \ to escape the . be good enough? I think we need to discuss the "." as indentation character proposal more at length. In particular, given the current design of sugar.scm, both " '.' is not indent if it precedes newline" and " '.' must be followed by a space or tab to be considered indent" are difficult to implement, given the 1-char lookahead. I think both Scheme's ... and dotted-list are rare enough that having to escape either with a \ is OK with me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
