On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:59:41 +0800, Alan Manuel Gloria <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks good to me.

Good!

> foo
>   \\
>   \\
> ===>
> (foo)
...
> whereas:
>
> foo
> ===>
> foo
> ?

Yes, that's intentional.  If a line has a child line, then it's wrapped into a list...
even if the child line produces empty.

My rationale is that if you comment out later lines that are
parameters of a procedure, you probably *stiill* want to
treat it as a procedure.  E.G., given:
foo
! complicated-expression 4 7
! !  otherstuff 8

If you comment foo's parameters:
foo
! #; complicated-expression 4 7
! !  otherstuff 8

... then you probably still want "foo" to be called, so "(foo)"
is probably the correct way to interpret this.
So it makes sense to simply say that "monify" is only called when
there are no child lines.  It's an easier rule to explain, too.
And once you accept that notion, it's important to be consistent
about it all the way through.

If someone REALLY wants foo to become a single value, he
can use a block comment:
foo #|
! #; complicated-expression 4 7
! !  otherstuff 8 |#

Of course, just because it's intentional doesn't make it the best approach.
Objections?  Agreements?

--- David A. Wheeler