On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 3:34:56 PM UTC+5:30, BartC wrote: > On 17/04/2016 04:44, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 10:22:10 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > > >> It comes with the maxim that one function must be visible at once on the > >> screen. > > > > Thats a strange self-contradiction. I wrote this: > > http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/layout-imperative-in-functional.html > > to make the case against PEP8 style line length strictures. > > Which has the SAME code formatted in two styles: > > > > -- < 80 cols, 48 lines > > -- 115 cols 37 lines > > > > Clearly the 115 cols is MORE fittable in a page than the 80 cols > > [Though my argument for that is based on other structural/semantic > > principles] > > Um, that's a different language, or does PEP8 apply to Haskell too? > > Haskell has a style that likes to be written horizontally (rather than > have statements one after another - /on separate lines/ - as in > imperative code). > > I also have trouble regarding that code as a single function, as it > implements (AFAICS) an entire lexer. It resembles data more than > anything else, and data presumably is allowed to be scrolled.
Thats a nice point ... and often neglected by even the aficionados of functional programming. See Data Orientation http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/functional-programming-lost-booty.html [yeah funny that I am tell you this given your recent famous thread on lexing!] Come to think of it take an SQL DBMS browser. Should we say: Horizontal scrolls are BAD; just reformat the table after reaching 80 columns? In fact much of the point of http://blog.languager.org/2012/10/layout-imperative-in-functional.html is just this: that as code becomes more and more data-ish, a more-lines-less-columns regime becomes correspondingly irksome. > Otherwise things would be very restrictive! Dont understand that comment -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
