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)
|
On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:32:46 -0500, John David Stone <xxxxxx@cs.grinnell.edu> wrote: > > > 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. > > John Cowan: > > Au contraire. It is so natural than even suits use nested indentation > > to show hierarchy in their PowerPoints. John David Stone: > Yes, and we see how well that works out when the hierarchies are as > deeply nested as those in LISP-like languages are. As I commented earlier, programs are indented in pretty much ALL languages, specifically to show nesting. As far as *deep* nesting goes, though, I think that: 1. Indentation works best to show the nesting of major structures, and parentheses work best to show nesting at the leaves. This means that "deep nesting" doesn't really cause problems, because indentation and parens can work together. 2. If you have long constructs, the "!" indent character works *really* well to show grouping. I've used them, for example, in long "cond" constructs. You correctly note that whitespace characters by themselves do not have the appropriate shapes to visibly emphasize certain kinds of nesting structures, but that's ok; we already noted and resolved that. --- David A. Wheeler