Re: Sweet-expressions

Once you write enough lisp, eliminating parens becomes more trouble than it's worth. Also the guy who did this has the same name as my dad? I'm ashamed. On Monday, 25 March 2013 06:52:23 UTC-4, poetix wrote: > > I really like the look of this: > > http://readable.sourceforge.net/ > > which defi

Re: Sweet-expressions

Right now, Clojure is fighting its way to get to Java-like performance for numerics, and that involves emitting primitive numbers and operations whenever possible. I'm afraid that would be utterly incompatible with turning numbers into functions - that would be at least two levels of indirection (n

Re: Sweet-expressions

I don't like the idea of infix math as a reader macro. Yeah prefix is weird to read for complex expressions, but in such rare cases there are ordinary macros that let you do infix math. Use them. An interesting thought I had the other day regarding infix math: It would be possible for Clojure to

Re: Sweet-expressions

I never have understood the obsession with moving the parens in Lisp to the same place they are in C-like languages. I'm not typing any less, and it certainly undermines the code = data (i.e. lisp lists / function calls) homoiconic representation. Is it "clearer"? Maybe to someone unaccustomed t

Re: Sweet-expressions

N Jason Lewis Email jasonlewi...@gmail.com Twitter@canweriotnow Blog http://decomplecting.org About http://about.me/jason.lewis On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kris Jenkins wrote: > As an interesting

Re: Sweet-expressions

As an interesting point of trivia, the idea of abandoning S-expressions for some other notation actually pre-dates the first implementation of Lisp. S-expressions were originally intended as a temporary measure, before a more familiar representation - deemed M-expressions - could be formalized.

Re: Sweet-expressions

(first | first coll) ; (first (first coll)) (count | first | second coll) ; (count (first (second coll))) (nth % 2 | first coll) ; (nth (first coll) 2) How is this better than the threading macro? (-> coll first first) (-> coll second first count) (-> coll first (nth 2)) Timothy Baldridge O

Re: Sweet-expressions

Some idea for alternative clojure syntax: (first | first coll) ; (first (first coll)) (count | first | second coll) ; (count (first (second coll))) (nth % 2 | first coll) ; (nth (first coll) 2) (+ 1)# ; (partial + 1) (+ 1 (* 2))## ; (fn [nb] (+ 1 (* 2 %)) (count | first | second)## ; (fn [coll]

Re: Sweet-expressions

As stated in the web site, there are sometimes different needs while creating/editing, and while reading. I see no need to create a second edition syntax. It may be interesting (and potentially way easier to prototype / play with the idea) to only provide alternative "views" of clojure code. My

Re: Sweet-expressions

One difficulty in that transformation for clojure might be that "{" already has significance to the clojure reader, denoting the beginning of a map literal. If { in that notation is exclusively used for infix binary operations, you could get around it, because in that context the {...} expression

Re: Sweet-expressions

Oh, it's this thread again. Please read https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/TB4i3ATmrEE/discussion before discussing further. TLDR: If you want to demonstrate the merits of significant white space for clojure, please implement a reader with the alternative rules you envision. Right now, the

Sweet-expressions

I really like the look of this: http://readable.sourceforge.net/ which defines a completely reversible transformation between e.g. define fibfast(n) if {n < 2} n fibup(n 2 1 0) and (define (fibfast n) (if (< n 2) n (fibup n 2 1 0))) and wonder how difficult it would be to