Am Freitag, 3. Mai 2013, 23:13:31 schrieb David A. Wheeler: > Another issue I see with the current leading $ behavior is this > > inconsistency: > > > > foo (a b) ==> (foo (a b)) > > foo $ a b ==> (foo (a b)) > > (a b) ==> (a b) > > $ a b ==> ((a b)) ; huh?! The inconsistency is not in $, but in treating single-item lists specially: a â a a b â (a b) Since (a b) is a single item, it gets treated as single item. It makes the code more readable, but it also leads to some side-effects. Thatâs one of the things I changed in wisp: To get the single-item behaviour, you have to prefix the item with a dot (.). The advantage is added consistency, but at the same time it is a trap: Itâs easy to forget the . for a return value (real coding verified that assumption from Alan (I think it was Alan)). Not adding brackets for a single item also has the advantage, that you can copy-paste lisp-code into readable. If you do the same in wisp, you have to prepend every top-level bracket with a dot. Readable: (a b (c)) â (a b (c)) Wisp: . (a b (c)) â (a b (c)) On the other hand: Readable: $ a b â ((a b)) Wisp: : a b â ((a b)) -or- (a b) â ((a b)) Best wishes, Arne -- Ein WÃrfel System - einfach saubere Regeln: - http://1w6.org
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.