Re: [Readable-discuss] wisp and readable - common expressions

[Arne B. <arn...@we...>]

Am Mittwoch, 19. November 2014, 18:34:25 schrieb David A. Wheeler:
> It's possible to write code that is interpreted *identically*
> on both wisp and sweet when indentation is enabled.

That’s cool!

> In sweet, a "." at the
> beginning of a line post-indent is basically ignored.

Would it be possible to generalize this, so sweet would also make the
full line a continuation instead of only ignoring the dot?

That would make many uses of \\ unnecessary, and wisp would then be
almost a subset of sweet.

> Thus, in both sweet and wisp:
> a b c
>   d e
>   . f
>   g h
> becomes:
> (a b c
>   (d e)
>   f
>   (g h))

> If wisp interpreted neoteric-expressions by default,
> then many more expressions work in both systems, e.g.:
> defun factorial()
>   if {n <= 1}
>   . 1
>   {n * factorial{n - 1}}

That’s true, but then lines with a single element would be treated
differently than lines with multiple elements, and that is a gotcha I
want to avoid.

It hits you with things like newline

wisp:
    define : hello
      display "Hello World!"
      newline
    define : hello2 who
      format #t "Hello ~A!\n" who
    hello2 "wisp"

sweet:
    define hello()
      display "Hello World!"
      newline()
    hello()
    define hello(who)
      format #t "Hello ~A!\n" who
    hello2 "sweet"
    ; or
    hello2("sweet")

> So while neoteric-expressions provide two ways to write something,
> in practice, there's a "more readable" way that better expresses the purpose
> in each case.

It’s almost as if you had intentionally motivated a quote I found
yesterday but didn’t share because I didn’t know whether it would come
off as offensive. With that kind of (unintentional?) prep-work:


     wisp-expressions are not as sweet as readable, but they KISS.


:-)

Best wishes,
Arne