I wouldn't say "configurable" in the sense of "set a flag so that this
function becomes that", so much as "configurable" in the sense of "trying
to get the right syntax for the target Lisp".
For example, while Arc, Scheme and Common Lisp are all Lisps, they each
have different syntax. In some ways, it seems a shame to try to create a
"sweet-expression" system that doesn't allow for the possibility of
recognising these different coding traditions.
For that matter, if I were to dust off a Symbolics Lisp Machine, and I
decided I wanted to use "sweet-expressions" for programming the beast, it
wouldn't be reasonable for me to start e-mailing this list, and saying,
"But I can't use either of '!', '.' or '~' for my Lisp Machine. These are
all reserved symbols! Why don't we use '_' or ':' instead?"
(Let's not rule out the possibility of finding an ancient Lisp Machine
being found in a Babylonian archaeological dig--in which case, a Cuniform
non-whitespace character would be a given! :-)
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the rules ought to be separated
from the implementation, so that if some weird system comes along, the
"sweet-expression" syntax can use the same principles, when syntax is the
issue.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Kartik Agaram <a...@akkartik.com> wrote:
> Hmm, are you suggesting making the different characters configurable
> so different languages can use say '.' or '!' to mean the same thing?
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
