Kartik Agaram: > I'll investigate ENLIST further. But I'm skeptical that the answer is > an additional syntax character. The problem is _not_ some lack of > functionality. The problem, IMO, is that y'all are trying to do too > much. You're trying to satisfy too many different camps of users, and > you're over-constraining the problem for yourselves.
We want "just enough" mechanism to be convenient to use. Too few mechanisms, it's a pain to use; too many, it's hard to learn. My theory has been (1) be creative and discuss lots of options, then (2) winnow down to a very few. So don't be afraid that so many options have been discussed. I'm skeptical of ENLIST in particular. The "." as indentation is odd, but it addresses one of the problems with indentation systems: whitespace "disappears" on some transports. No doubt we can argue about whether there are too many/too few, but I think the current set for sweet-expressions is pretty good. And I'm *confident* about curly-infix and modern-expressions; it's hard to take away anything from them. > Paradoxically, this might be easier as an actual language. A simple > one, one that maps 1-1 to CL, scheme, etc. Don't just insert parens > and move them around, mandate a specific syntax for if, let, etc. that > is conducive to indent-sensitivity. Then port the translator to emit > CL, scheme, all the dialects you want. That *sounds* true, but I'm convinced that it's false. There have been dozens of Lisp-based programming languages that started with that premise, starting with McCarthy's M-expressions, and they just don't work for Lisp-based systems. There are many other good programming languages; a key reason to choose a Lisp is thwarted by these syntax-locked notations. > Has this doing-too-much critique come up before? > http://sourceforge.net/p/readable/wiki/Retort is just about > indent-sensitivity in principle, not in the details. No, not exactly. The only *new* things that have been added so far, really, are SPLIT in the middle of a line and period+space/tab as indent. We're changing the GROUP marking symbol, and its semantics are changing slightly, but not much. Everything else is clarifications and tweaks to the rules. Yes, there are several rules. But you have to learn many *more* rules to use a Lisp-based system effectively. The point is that the rules are *general*; they are a one-time cost, with benefits that keep giving. > I think programming in a lisp requires awareness of the parens even if > you could never see or type them. Do y'all agree? Yes, yes. I just want to stop having to see all of them. --- 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
