On 8/1/07, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:05 , david48 wrote:
>
> > On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
> > the compiler the size of the tab characters.
> >
> > The way it is now, I have to use space characters to ind
On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:05 , david48 wrote:
On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
the compiler the size of the tab characters.
The way it is now, I have to use space characters to indent.
The problem with that is, while there's a standard for the width of a
t
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 16:05 +0200, david48 wrote:
> On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
> the compiler the size of the tab characters.
>
> The way it is now, I have to use space characters to indent.
Good! You're doing exactly the right thing according to the Ha
On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
the compiler the size of the tab characters.
The way it is now, I have to use space characters to indent.
It's not really a problem though.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe
On 27 Jul 2007, at 4:33 pm, anon wrote:
2007/7/26, ok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The Fundamental Law of Indentation is
"If major syntactic unit X is a proper part of major syntactic
unit Y, then every visible character of X is strictly to the
right[%] of the leftmost[%] visible character
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:32PM -0400, anon wrote:
> 2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >As for "why", it's just a matter of Haskell Committee taste. Nothing
> >too deep, just an arbitrary set of rules.
> That's not much of an explanation, is it? I imagine someone must have
> given
On 27/07/07, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see what you did there. But you really might as well end sentences
> with prepositions. Or begin them with conjunction. Or indent your code
> whichever way seems most natural and elegant because to do otherwise
> is just prescriptivism for its own s
2007/7/26, ok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The Fundamental Law of Indentation is
>"If major syntactic unit X is a proper part of major syntactic
> unit Y, then every visible character of X is strictly to the
> right[%] of the leftmost[%] visible character of Y."
> [%] If you are using a right
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Out of curiousity, what do you find objectionable about (legal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
as compared to (currently illegal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
I see the vertical strokes as visually lining up, po
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:17:06PM -0400, anon wrote:
>
> but one could likewise dismiss the entire layout business as a
> needlessly complicated way to save a few keystrokes if one were so
> inclined.
The main point of layout, in my eyes, is to make code more readable.
It achieves this both by r
Concerning
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
I feel that anything that prevents that kind of horror is
a great benefit of the current rules and that this benefit
must not be lost by any revision of the rules.
The Fundamental Law of Indentation is
"If major syntactic
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:17:06PM -0400, anon wrote:
> 2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Out of curiousity, what do you find objectionable about (legal):
>>
>> function argument argument2
>> | guard = body
>> | guard = body
>>
>> as compared to (currently illegal):
>>
>> function
2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Out of curiousity, what do you find objectionable about (legal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
as compared to (currently illegal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
The extra space, obviously
On 7/27/07, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I have no problem with the current way (and would consider
> anything other than 4 leading spaces in the first example to be evil).
> However, if you are using a text editor which doesn't automatically
> indent the start of followin
Hi
Why do you think it should be allowed? The current rules are arbitrary,
but they are quite simple; we don't want to add an ad-hoc exception just
for this.
The current rules are already quite complex, I believe there is some
thought being given as to how to simplify them.
Out of curiousit
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:32PM -0400, anon wrote:
> 2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> As for "why", it's just a matter of Haskell Committee taste. Nothing
>> too deep, just an arbitrary set of rules.
> That's not much of an explanation, is it? I imagine someone must have
> given
16 matches
Mail list logo
