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

Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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?