Re: The beauty of LATEX

On 10/23/2011 4:15 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 
> on Sat Oct 22 2011, Joel de Guzman <joel-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/22/2011 5:08 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>>> On 22 October 2011 02:48, Joel de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2011 6:14 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>>>>> I think your third list is incorrect.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> is a single element list with 2 elements, but it says it's a 2 element list.
>>
>> Jeepers! Describing such a simple thing in english makes me dizzy! :-)
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I think you'll need to add another built-in function for calling
>>> function arguments, such as:
>>>
>>> [def foo a][[`call [`a]]]
>>>
>>> Otherwise consider:
>>>
>>> [def foo a][[`a]]
>>> [def bar][x]
>>> [foo [bar]]
>>>
>>> Does invoking [`a] return a list of one item, or the text 'x'?
>>
>> Let me re-code that using the latest syntax tweak
>> (http://pastebin.com/rvQfCVKh),
>>
>> [def foo a][[a]]
> 
> Especially if you're inspired by S-expressions, I can't imagine any good
> excuse to invent a new syntax when lisp already has a syntax for this
> sort of thing.  If we need to use square brackets instead of round ones
> for legacy (or other) reasons, that's fine, but I don't at all see why
> it makes sense to choose a syntax where of all things there's no outer
> set of parens around the entire
> function/macro/template/whatever-you-call-this-thing.  Why not do this:
> 
>   [def foo[a] [a]]

You are right Dave. I totally mixed it up! My concern was legacy
Qbk code. I wanted something that can be applied to legacy code
using simple grep. But I fumbled and mixed it up. I see that
the old syntax has the syntax you wrote! I'll fix it.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com