On Feb 4, 2013 7:58 PM, "Dave Sann" <daves...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The syntax does complect in one case. > When you really do want a list as opposed to a function call. hence quote > and (list ...) > The evaluation rules are clojure's implementation of reduction in lambda calculus. Every clojure form has an associated evaluation rule. So syntax and semantic are already complected from the start. Otherwise we wouldn't call it a language. On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 07:06:37 UTC+11, tbc++ wrote: > > I would also assert that Python complects formatting and semantic meaning > of the code. > It does, however the mind of the typical human reader does too. I think that's the point of python. In this sense, I think, making formatting significant is actually a good idea. The reason we can still leave this thread now is: - Python - style significant white space only works for code blocks - It works great for python, because python is _an imperative language_ - In functional style, only let is consistently formatted as a block, hence blocks just don't work as the foundation of formatting > filter(smaller, xs) > filter(smaller(), xs()) This, btw, is the reason I have a bit of language envy towards haskell. (with lazy evaluation, the difference between f and (f) vanishes) cheers -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
