[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions

From: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:40:07 -0400 (EDT)

> It's not a totally different syntax, though it can *look* that way.

How it *looks* is what this srfi is basically about, right?

> but that is a very uncommon format for a traditional s-expression.

Yes, but I prefer denser code and sometimes I drop those
whitespaces to avoid the expression spill over to the next line,
so turning on n-exprs outside {} is dangerous for my code base.

Plus, my mental parser is trained to see f(x) as two items f and (x)
when it's in "s-expression" mode, so mixing s-exprs and n-exprs
wouldn't work for me.
Have you written code mixing s-exprs and n-exprs *without* using
c-exprs and t-exprs?  If so, how did it work for you?