Re: [Readable-discuss] Discussion: Should leading "." in sweet-expressions have wisp semantics?
Am Freitag, 28. November 2014, 08:38:26 schrieb David A. Wheeler: > Perhaps more interestingly, I would expect this: > foo bar > aaa bbb ccc > . ddd eee fff > ggg hhh > => > (foo bar (aaa bbb ccc) ddd eee fff (ggg hhh)) Yepp, that’s how wisp would transform that. It’s the core reason for the existence of the leading-period rule: Making most kinds of general tree/list-of-list structures look similar. I know that that’s not the best description of its effect, but I don’t find a better description right now… I hope you understand what I mean anyway. Best wishes, Arne -- Konstruktive Kritik: - http://draketo.de/licht/krude-ideen/konstruktive-kritik -- 1w6 sie zu achten, sie alle zu finden, in Spiele zu leiten und sacht zu verbinden. → http://1w6.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
Re: [Readable-discuss] Discussion: Should leading "." in sweet-expressions have wisp semantics?
Arne can best give the wisp answer, but here is what I would expect: 1.: foo bar . aaa bbb ccc . ddd eee => (foo bar aaa bbb ccc ddd eee) 2.: foo bar . aaa bbb . ccc . ddd eee Error. Period after leading period. Perhaps more interestingly, I would expect this: foo bar aaa bbb ccc . ddd eee fff ggg hhh => (foo bar (aaa bbb ccc) ddd eee fff (ggg hhh)) On November 28, 2014 5:59:14 AM EST, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" wrote: >Am 27.11.2014 um 20:03 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide: >> Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 08:47:49 schrieb David A. Wheeler: However within "normal" s-expressions or neotheric expressions I'd >have >>> second thoughts. How would this be parsed?: >>> foo bar . aaa . bbb ccc >>> >>> I agree, that should be an error. It doesn't really make any sense >to me either. I expect this would continue to be ok: >>> >>> aaa bbb . ccc >>> => >>> (aaa bbb . ccc) >>> >>> And the following would still be an error: >>> aaa bbb . ccc ddd > >+1 > >> >> That’s also what wisp does: The leading dot is interpreted as >> continuation if it’s the first character in a line in >> indentation-sensitive code. >> >> It would be cool to see sweet and wisp move closer together here! > >+1 > >How does wisp deal with these? > >1.: > >foo bar > . aaa bbb ccc > . ddd eee > >2.: > >foo bar > . aaa bbb . ccc > . ddd eee --- David A.Wheeler-- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
Re: [Readable-discuss] Discussion: Should leading "." in sweet-expressions have wisp semantics?
Am 27.11.2014 um 20:03 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide: > Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 08:47:49 schrieb David A. Wheeler: >>> However within "normal" s-expressions or neotheric expressions I'd have >> second thoughts. How would this be parsed?: >> >>> foo bar >>> . aaa . bbb ccc >> >> I agree, that should be an error. It doesn't really make any sense to me >> either. I expect this would continue to be ok: >> >> aaa bbb . ccc >> => >> (aaa bbb . ccc) >> >> And the following would still be an error: >> aaa bbb . ccc ddd +1 > > That’s also what wisp does: The leading dot is interpreted as > continuation if it’s the first character in a line in > indentation-sensitive code. > > It would be cool to see sweet and wisp move closer together here! +1 How does wisp deal with these? 1.: foo bar . aaa bbb ccc . ddd eee 2.: foo bar . aaa bbb . ccc . ddd eee signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
Re: [Readable-discuss] Discussion: Should leading "." in sweet-expressions have wisp semantics?
Am Donnerstag, 27. November 2014, 08:47:49 schrieb David A. Wheeler: > > However within "normal" s-expressions or neotheric expressions I'd have > second thoughts. How would this be parsed?: > > > foo bar > > . aaa . bbb ccc > > I agree, that should be an error. It doesn't really make any sense to me > either. I expect this would continue to be ok: > > aaa bbb . ccc > => > (aaa bbb . ccc) > > And the following would still be an error: > aaa bbb . ccc ddd That’s also what wisp does: The leading dot is interpreted as continuation if it’s the first character in a line in indentation-sensitive code. It would be cool to see sweet and wisp move closer together here! Best wishes, Arne signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
Re: [Readable-discuss] Discussion: Should leading "." in sweet-expressions have wisp semantics?
> However within "normal" s-expressions or neotheric expressions I'd have second thoughts. How would this be parsed?: > foo bar > . aaa . bbb ccc I agree, that should be an error. It doesn't really make any sense to me either. I expect this would continue to be ok: aaa bbb . ccc => (aaa bbb . ccc) And the following would still be an error: aaa bbb . ccc ddd On November 27, 2014 6:04:47 AM EST, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" wrote: >Am 26.11.2014 um 23:32 schrieb David A. Wheeler: >> This is a request for comment: >> In sweet-expressions, should a line beginning with "." have the same >semantics as wisp? >> >> In wisp, I understand that a line beginning with "." is interpreted >as a sequence of expressions at the same level. E.G.,: >> foo bar >> . aaa bbb ccc >> => >> (foo bar aaa bbb ccc). >> >> A "." with a single n-expression is interpreted this way now. >Currently, it's illegal to have more than 1 n-expression on a line; >this change would relax that rule. >> >> Anyway, thoughts welcome, pro or con. > >For indentation sensitive mode as the first element on a line: I fail >to >see what damage it could do. => pro > >However within "normal" s-expressions or neotheric expressions I'd have >second thoughts. How would this be parsed?: > >foo bar > . aaa . bbb ccc > >Here I'd prefer to get a parsing error. => con > >/Jörg > >-- >Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server >from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and >Dashboards >with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & >more >Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, >FREE >http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >___ >Readable-discuss mailing list >Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss --- David A.Wheeler-- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk___ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
Re: [Readable-discuss] Discussion: Should leading "." in sweet-expressions have wisp semantics?
Am 26.11.2014 um 23:32 schrieb David A. Wheeler: > This is a request for comment: > In sweet-expressions, should a line beginning with "." have the same > semantics as wisp? > > In wisp, I understand that a line beginning with "." is interpreted as a > sequence of expressions at the same level. E.G.,: > foo bar > . aaa bbb ccc > => > (foo bar aaa bbb ccc). > > A "." with a single n-expression is interpreted this way now. Currently, > it's illegal to have more than 1 n-expression on a line; this change would > relax that rule. > > Anyway, thoughts welcome, pro or con. For indentation sensitive mode as the first element on a line: I fail to see what damage it could do. => pro However within "normal" s-expressions or neotheric expressions I'd have second thoughts. How would this be parsed?: foo bar . aaa . bbb ccc Here I'd prefer to get a parsing error. => con /Jörg -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
[Readable-discuss] Discussion: Should leading "." in sweet-expressions have wisp semantics?
This is a request for comment: In sweet-expressions, should a line beginning with "." have the same semantics as wisp? In wisp, I understand that a line beginning with "." is interpreted as a sequence of expressions at the same level. E.G.,: foo bar . aaa bbb ccc => (foo bar aaa bbb ccc). A "." with a single n-expression is interpreted this way now. Currently, it's illegal to have more than 1 n-expression on a line; this change would relax that rule. Anyway, thoughts welcome, pro or con. --- David A. Wheeler -- Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ___ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
