5 ms·
I see what you mean. A separator doesn’t work with the concept at all. Apart from that, my reformatting still has two distinct advantages: it does not require a
by evincarofautumn 14y ago
I see what you mean. A separator doesn’t work with the concept at all. Apart from that, my reformatting still has two distinct advantages: it does not require a fixed-width typeface, and indentation is not affected by the lengths of identifiers. It’s silly to format code in such a way that you need to re-indent just because you renamed a function.
- ericbb 14y agoAlexander Burger indents his PicoLisp code more along the lines you describe. Example: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Execute_Brain****#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Execute_Brain****#PicoLisp
- chrisdone 14y agoThat's true. I don't like reading it, but I would prefer writing it. It's pretty much why in Haskell I write: foo $ bar $ do hello world rather than foo $ bar $ do hello world You could easily have: foo bar mu be equivalent to foo bar mu but if you had foo bar bob zot mu And you rename foo, you're back to square one again (zot is no longer syntactical). Unless you just have a rule like: foobarmuzot bar bob zot mu means foobarmuzot bar bob zot mu But it seems comparatively difficult to read, and deceptive.