How many spaces a tab is worth
David Allouche
(01 Dec 2003 12:44 UTC)
|
Re: How many spaces a tab is worth
bear
(02 Dec 2003 04:16 UTC)
|
Re: How many spaces a tab is worth
redhog@xxxxxx
(04 Dec 2003 20:33 UTC)
|
Re: How many spaces a tab is worth
Bradd W. Szonye
(04 Dec 2003 22:05 UTC)
|
Re: How many spaces a tab is worth
Taylor Campbell
(04 Dec 2003 22:43 UTC)
|
Re: How many spaces a tab is worth redhog@xxxxxx (05 Dec 2003 00:06 UTC)
|
Re: How many spaces a tab is worth
bear
(05 Dec 2003 00:27 UTC)
|
Re: How many spaces a tab is worth redhog@xxxxxx 05 Dec 2003 00:06 UTC
Note that I _do_ agree with him on his technical point there is definitely no need to change how a Scheme interpreter interprets input when first started, before any special request (like a one to use this syntax). I'm sorry for my harsh language - that could actually be taken as me being a troll! But what got me to call his posting a troll was I'll just take it as a warning that there are idiots out there who would do this, and implementation of it as a sign from God that the implementor has in fact gone insane and that their scheme should be avoided in the future. That is neither a statement of his feelings about if this is good or bad, nor a technical argument. It is basically labeling me an idiot. Files where all of the declarations are wrapped in some form, will of course be parsed as they would traditionally - indentation-sensitivity is only active _outside_ any parenthesis. This discussion is however not so important, as no one (at least, I'm not) is suggesting having this syntax turned on by default, so whethe it would parse files unaware of it correct or not is not so much an issue... -- http://redhog.org GPG Public key: http://redhog.org/PGP%20Public%20key.asc Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!