Comment on SRFI-110 and Comparison to Genyris xyzzy
Bill Birch
(22 May 2013 15:03 UTC)
|
Re: Comment on SRFI-110 and Comparison to Genyris xyzzy
David A. Wheeler
(23 May 2013 13:39 UTC)
|
sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John David Stone
(23 May 2013 16:08 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John Cowan
(23 May 2013 16:19 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic John David Stone (23 May 2013 16:32 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(24 May 2013 03:55 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(24 May 2013 03:12 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John David Stone
(24 May 2013 15:34 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John Cowan
(24 May 2013 20:02 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(24 May 2013 20:09 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John David Stone
(24 May 2013 21:35 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(24 May 2013 22:40 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John David Stone
(24 May 2013 23:13 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(25 May 2013 03:43 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John Cowan
(25 May 2013 03:20 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(25 May 2013 04:17 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(25 May 2013 04:27 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John Cowan
(25 May 2013 04:55 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(25 May 2013 18:14 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John David Stone
(26 May 2013 23:26 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(27 May 2013 00:29 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John David Stone
(27 May 2013 15:51 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Alan Manuel Gloria
(28 May 2013 04:28 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(28 May 2013 18:34 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin
(26 May 2013 20:40 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(26 May 2013 22:43 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(27 May 2013 00:00 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Alexey Radul
(27 May 2013 03:32 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(27 May 2013 04:44 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Alexey Radul
(27 May 2013 05:50 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Alan Manuel Gloria
(27 May 2013 06:34 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(27 May 2013 15:14 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(27 May 2013 13:55 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Alexey Radul
(27 May 2013 16:27 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John Cowan
(27 May 2013 15:55 UTC)
|
RE: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
Jos Koot
(27 May 2013 04:57 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
David A. Wheeler
(27 May 2013 13:37 UTC)
|
Re: sweet-expressions are not homoiconic
John Cowan
(27 May 2013 15:50 UTC)
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John Cowan writes: > John David Stone scripsit: > > > From the beginning, there was an obvious impediment to the use of > > sweet-expressions: Readers who are accustomed to alphabetic writing > > systems in which whitespace is almost invariably used as a word > > separator, a paragraph separator, a decorative typographical element, > > or for page layout simply don't respond psychologically to whitespace > > characters as they do to visible characters such as parentheses. > > Ifthatwerereallytruewedstillallbewritinginscriptiocontin > ualikethiswherelinesarebrokenanywhereatall. Well, it did take a considerable time (measured in generations) for the use of whitespace as a word separator to become standard. But there was an obvious motivating advantage in that case: separated-word texts are significantly less ambiguous. No such advantage accrues to sweet-expressions. > > Whitespace characters don't look like grouping symbols, as > > parentheses, brackets, braces, or oriented quotation marks do, because > > they don't have appropriate shapes and don't come in pairs. Moreover, > > they don't visibly nest, so it is unnatural to use them to represent > > recursively defined syntactic structures. > > Au contraire. It is so natural than even suits use nested indentation > to show hierarchy in their PowerPoints. Yes, and we see how well that works out when the hierarchies are as deeply nested as those in LISP-like languages are. The other common case of the use of indentation to indicate grouping is legislative bills, which I would hesitate to cite as exemplars of readability and homoiconicity. It's not a persuasive argument to say that Scheme programs could be made just as readable as Congressional legislation and the wordier kinds of PowerPoint slides. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.9 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/> iEUEARECAAYFAlGeRKAACgkQbBGsCPR0ElQuQACgnggV4ukve4K3r0RFKN13ZVq5 w0YAl1jjyLJ8fVwF4RaeC/4sR3eXt0g= =k+C9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----