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)
|
Beni Cherniavsky-Paskin <xxxxxx@users.sf.net> wrote: > Other notable examples: > - YAML which has largely won over JSON as a human-writable notation. > - Lists & quotations in Markdown, reStructuredText etc. > - The triumvirate of > - HAML > - Sass > - Coffeescript Great points. I'll add them to the SRFI, as well as some other links. Certainly it shows that this approach has been used in many places. F#, HAML, Sass, and Coffeescript are certainly not old, so it's not an idea that has disappeared. > As for "expressing thought", a lot of pseud-code styles use indentation for > grouping. > StructuredText was a notable cautionary tale - it used indentation for > everything including chapter structure, which caused whole documents to be > intented (similar to the define-library situation); reStructuredText was > borne out of fixing that. I think that is important to note. It's all fine and well to say "don't add markers to indentation-based languages"... until you try to USE it. Then you find that indentation sensitivity is MOSTLY fine... and the trick is to fix the mostly. ... > - Python tightly anchored the transition from indentation to delimiters to > the semantical statement/expression boundary. As a result lambdas are > crippled forever — nobody came up with a satisfactory syntax for > statements-inside-lambdas. > If Python were defined on top of Sweet expressions one would be free to > keep the lambda and the surrounding function call(s) in indentation land. Agreed. Since we've focused on having a *general* notation, we don't have that problem at all. > Neoteric & Sweet expressions advance the state of the art by separating > infix and indentation sensitivity from the rest of the language design. > This allows other sugar to be defined over an already parsed tree > (ideally via macros inside the language), which facilitates language > innovation — same way s-expressions did. > Don't judge it merely on bringing indentation to the homoiconic Lisp world > — it's also bringing the gift of homoiconity to the indentation (and > infix)-loving crowd! > > I don't know if the experiment will succeed, but I'm happy that David is > trying. Thanks! --- David A. Wheeler