[REBOL] Re: source code layout question
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 4-Jan-2002 19:38
Hi, Carl,
Carl Read wrote:
> ... It's only drawbacks I think are three extra spaces on
> some lines (minor) ...
>
Those are there to make the content of multi-line blocks (or
multiple consecutive blocks, where some may be multi-line)
all line up indented under the controlling expression.
> and not being able to cut and paste it into the Console -
> a major disadvantage, I think. If it wasn't for that, it'd
> be tempting to switch to it...
>
Actually, I've been cutting and pasting with it (just with
a tad of cheating ;-). I simply type into the console
do [
then paste in whatever I've cut from wherever, then type a
final
]
and press return. That bit of extra typing (which does take
more effort than just using control-C...) wraps everything in
an extra attention-span-preserving block to keep the console's
attention until the input expression is explicitly closed by
the last right bracket.
> My current style (such as it is:) is much the sames as Petr's
...
> I'd write...
>
> either x = 0 [z][
> either y = 0 [head reverse z][
> while [x < y][
> y: y - x
> append z "x"
> ]
> foo y x z
> ]
> ]
>
I've tried that myself, but it seems to break the symmetry between
the two blocks managed by the EITHER. Conceptually I "see" them as
being at the same "level" under the control of the first argument
to EITHER; therefore I prefer a typographical structure that makes
them appear "side by side". Having one of them on the same line as
EITHER and the controlling expression versus the other being
indented below seems to hide their side-by-side relationship.
I've certainly written my share of
either blahblahblah [t-option][f-option]
when all will fit on one line, however.
-jn-
--
; sub REBOL {}; sub head ($) {@_[0]}
REBOL []
# despam: func [e] [replace replace/all e ":" "." "#" "@"]
; sub despam {my ($e) = @_; $e =~ tr/:#/.@/; return "\n$e"}
print head reverse despam "moc:xedef#yleen:leoj" ;
