This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 49 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 49 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, RedHog ([iso-8859-1] Egil Möller) wrote: >Dear Bear, > >I won't comment much on your mail, as it seems to mostly be a troll. I'm not trolling. That was, clearly and simply, my honest opinion. I don't want to fight about it; I just didn't want anyone to make any mistakes about me supporting something just because I said it would be less bad one way than another. With tabs prohibited, your proposal is merely horrible. With them allowed and bound to a non- standard number of spaces it would be even worse. >Specifically, the only code that would break, would be code that had >two consecutive topplevel expressions, with the second line indented >more, as in > >(define foo bar) > > (define fie naja) > >To code like that clearly is not very usefull, and so isn't found in >many progams (most progams I've seen have had all topplevel >expressions non-indented). Happens all the time during development when I move an internal definition to outside the scope it was originally in because I find that it's necessary to have it have larger scope. I cut the line from its internal-declaration scope and paste it into its new location in the file, among other top level declarations. Cleaning up indentation comes later. >The rest of your garbage, I've dumped in /dev/null... No you didn't, you silly person; you qouted the entire thing and top-posted your response. Here, I'll delete it for you. I wish I could do the same with your silly proposal to ruin scheme syntax with significant indentation. Bear