Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin: > Here is yet another idea for opening multiple levels on one line, that does > NOT involve column counting, only comparison of leading whitespaces. > > It's a backward-compatible extension to SUBLIST (similarly applicable to > any competing FOOLIST semantics), so we could leave it undecided for now, > and legalize it later. > > $ lets one open an inner list on one line, but currently it's only usable > when this list is the last element of the containing list: > > outer1 outer2 $ inner1 > ! inner2 > > You cannot express (outer1 outer2 (inner1 inner2) outer3) > without giving up on use of $. > > The proposal is to allow an unmatched dedent after inner2, and have that > return you to the outer level: ...
Note: I earlier replied with a variant idea with subject "$ at end of line bug?", but Alan Manuel Gloria noted, "shouldn't we be discussing this on Beni's proposal thread?" so I'll continue on THIS thread instead. Sorry for the confusion... As noted earlier, this is an interesting proposal, but I have a variety of concerns with it. Alan Manuel Gloria: > I think that, conceptually, having a limitation is an additional > complication when teaching the notation. ... > I'd rather have the full Beni formulation of SUBLIST or the classic > 0.4 formulation, in that preference order. Okay. If that's so, and no one else speaks up, perhaps we should just continue to use the classic formulation. I'm fine with that; we know that works well, and I think it's well-specified. We could ensure that nothing we do now *forbids* later extending it this way, and document this as a potential future extension. That would keep our options open. Sound reasonable? Per the email quote above, Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin was fine with not specifying at this time as long as we didn't close the door to it, and this would be consistent with it. Should we allow "$" at the end without partial dedents (creating an extra ()), or should we just drop that too? > I'll admit that I don't have a use for the full Beni formulation other > than for let, though. I suspect there may be further use cases; but I > haven't found any others yet. That's my point, too. Indent-and-dedent generally works just fine, so this complicated approach doesn't seem justified enough. The current approach even works nicely for "let", it just requires two short lines: let ! \\ ! ! var1 value1 ! body... --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
