On 19 Dec 2009, at 00:29, Mark Engelberg wrote: > The main downside of such an approach is that if you copy and paste > your code to a new context in which it has a different level of > indenting, it's very easy to screw things up. You then have no way to > re-indent the code without fully analyzing and understanding the > *semantics* of the code, because the only syntactic cues (the > whitespace) is now invalid and can't be trusted.
My general feeling is that it's bad form to make sensitive whitespace the *only* option (I'm looking at you, Python). What I'm wondering is whether there's any harm in making it available as an option, and whether it makes sense as a default. Haskell answered yes to both these questions, and what it gains Haskell in readability is well worth the tradeoff. However, I agree that fully-parenthesized syntax should always be available to those that want it. But I assume that it's Rich's plan that Clojure should be more accessible than to just Lisp-heads, and a less parenthesized syntax might go a long way to easing their jitters. Martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
