2013/2/7 Herwig Hochleitner <hhochleit...@gmail.com>: > 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
To play the devil advocate, I'd say: - almost any clojure.core macros / special forms can be seen as introducing blocks: defns, fn, with-*, try, and so on ... - it is true that people, that I admire and respect, that are great minds, look at clojure code, and then disregard it because of its syntax. This keeps annoying me. But I don't have a magical wand, so I think I just have to live with it. - What I've done in Counterclockwise is ease the pain and ease the editing by : having rainbow parens, or grayed parens. This helps. Also, of course, paredit, paren-matching, etc. - From time to time, I've thought about adding a "read-only" mode for viewing the code in the style depicted above (the Racket thing), but it's not a priority (and I have no proof that it will help Clojure get significantly more traction). > >> 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. > > -- -- 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.
