On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, RedHog ([iso-8859-1] Egil Möller) wrote:

>Dear Bear,
>
>I won't comment much on your mail, as it seems to mostly be a troll.

I'm not trolling.  That was, clearly and simply, my honest opinion.
I don't want to fight about it; I just didn't want anyone to make
any mistakes about me supporting something just because I said it
would be less bad one way than another.  With tabs prohibited, your
proposal is merely horrible.  With them allowed and bound to a non-
standard number of spaces it would be even worse.

>Specifically, the only code that would break, would be code that had
>two consecutive topplevel expressions, with the second line indented
>more, as in
>
>(define foo bar)
>
>   (define fie naja)
>
>To code like that clearly is not very usefull, and so isn't found in
>many progams (most progams I've seen have had all topplevel
>expressions non-indented).

Happens all the time during development when I move an internal
definition to outside the scope it was originally in because I
find that it's necessary to have it have larger scope.  I cut
the line from its internal-declaration scope and paste it into
its new location in the file, among other top level declarations.
Cleaning up indentation comes later.

>The rest of your garbage, I've dumped in /dev/null...

No you didn't, you silly person; you qouted the entire thing and
top-posted your response.  Here, I'll delete it for you.  I wish
I could do the same with your silly proposal to ruin scheme syntax
with significant indentation.

			Bear