I wonder what this thread would be like if people were talking about Racket/Scheme instead:
#lang racket
{define {foo bar}
{if {= 5 bar}
{display "It was 5\n"}
{if {not {= 42 bar}}
{display "It was something else\n"}
{display "It was The Answer\n"}}}}
{foo 15}
o man, that's just insane. is that actual regular syntax, or are you intentionally making it weird?
A little bit of both. Racket has the "feature" that it doesn't care about what kind of braces you use so long as the opening and closing match (so [] and {} and () are all the same). That code would normally be written using parentheses instead of curly braces, but I used curly braces to make it relevant to the thread.
Cornstalks: don't know any languages in the Scheme family, though what the heck is defining a scope or what is a scope in that family of languages?
Uhhh... the braces (which in normal code would be parentheses). In Racket/Scheme, the parentheses go before the function name, not after (so in C it's foo(), but in Racket it's (foo)). I won't go into the syntax too much, but there's sane scoping. It's just a weird syntax.
Just to show you what kind of horrible stuff you can do, you could write a simple program to print out "hi" a bunch of times, and instead of using the idiomatic parans, you can use non-idiomatic stuff:
(define (<>) (display "hi\n") <>)
[[[{{[{[{[{{(((({({({(({[[{{{((((<>))))}}}]]}))})})}))))}}]}]}]}}]]]
; prints ~32 lines of "hi"
So yeah... I don't care what kind of indentation you use in your C-style code, so long as you're consistent.
Always great to read some good news around the net. Oh back on topic...
