4 ms·
I think you missed part of my point, which is that "..." vs. ".." is a subtlety introduced by the mantra of high-density syntax seen in LFSP design. The 10 doe
by aston 19y ago
I think you missed part of my point, which is that "..." vs. ".." is a subtlety introduced by the mantra of high-density syntax seen in LFSP design.
The 10 doesn't print, btw.
- brlewis 19y agoI don't think the ".." vs "..." level of density is universal in LFSP design. Macros in Lisp/Scheme are words. See the sql-repeat macro with group-beginning? and group-ending? for example. It makes things more transparent than your typical LFM implementation would: http://brl.codesimply.net/brl_4.html#SEC31 http://brl.codesimply.net/brl_4.html#SEC31
- jey 19y agoThen by your measure, is Perl the most-LFSP language out there? I think Perl reads like line noise. High-density syntax with clear, simple concepts is a desirable feature in a language. Assigning some function to every possible permutation of symbols (a la Perl) is just stupid. Ruby falls into the "just stupid" bin in this case.