In comp.unix.programmer Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>>On 05.04.2024 01:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>This is where indentation helps. E.g.
>>> a =
>>> b ?
>>> c ? d : e
>>> : f ?
>>> g ? h : i
>>> : j;
>>>
>>Indentation generally helps.
>
> Let me give it a try to find how I would indent that!
>
> b?
> c? d: e:
> f?
> g? h: i:
> j;
>

Better:

a = b ? (c ? d : e) :
f ? (g ? h : i) :
j;

Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:

(setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
(f (if g h i))
(t j)))

And some people claim that ternaries are SO horribly
unreadable that they should never be used.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 08:04:35 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:

> Better:
>
> a = b ? (c ? d : e) :
> f ? (g ? h : i) :
> j;

Better still (fewer confusing parentheses):

a =
b ?
c ? d : e
: f ?
g ? h : i
: j;

> Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>
> (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
> (f (if g h i))
> (t j)))

You can’t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:

(setf a
(cond
(b
(if c d e)
)
(f
(if g h i)
)
(t
j
)
) ; cond
)

On 2024-08-06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>>
>> (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
>> (f (if g h i))
>> (t j)))
>
> You can’t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:
>
> (setf a
> (cond
> (b
> (if c d e)
> )
> (f
> (if g h i)
> )
> (t
> j
> )
> ) ; cond
> )

Nobody is ever going to follow your idio(syncra)tic coding preferences
for Lisp, that wouldn't pass code review in any Lisp shop, and result in
patches being rejected in a FOSS setting.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:43:10 -0000 (UTC)
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> boringly babbled:
>On 2024-08-06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>>>
>>> (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
>>> (f (if g h i))
>>> (t j)))
>>
>> You can’t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:
>>
>> (setf a
>> (cond
>> (b
>> (if c d e)
>> )
>> (f
>> (if g h i)
>> )
>> (t
>> j
>> )
>> ) ; cond
>> )
>
>Nobody is ever going to follow your idio(syncra)tic coding preferences
>for Lisp, that wouldn't pass code review in any Lisp shop, and result in
>patches being rejected in a FOSS setting.

I'm not a Lisp dev, but the original looks far more readable to me.
His definition of improvement seems to be obfuscation.

On Di 06 Aug 2024 at 23:34, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 08:04:35 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>
>> Better:
>>
>> a = b ? (c ? d : e) :
>> f ? (g ? h : i) :
>> j;
>
> Better still (fewer confusing parentheses):
>
> a =
> b ?
> c ? d : e
> : f ?
> g ? h : i
> : j;
>
>> Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>>
>> (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
>> (f (if g h i))
>> (t j)))
>
> You can’t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:
>
> (setf a
> (cond
> (b
> (if c d e)
> )
> (f
> (if g h i)
> )
> (t
> j
> )
> ) ; cond
> )

Sorry, but that is not an improvement but rather an abomination.

'Andreas
--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam

In article <87ttfv6np9.fsf@eder.anydns.info>,
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
....
>Sorry, but that is not an improvement but rather an abomination.

I suggest to one and all that you all continue throwing barbs at each other
under this revised thread Subject: header.

It will make it much easier for the rest of us to filter it out.

Thank you.

--
Atheism:
It's like being the only sober person in the car, and nobody will let you drive.

On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 17:25:54 +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:

> Sorry, but that is not an improvement but rather an abomination.

Aw, diddums.

On 2024-08-08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 17:25:54 +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but that is not an improvement but rather an abomination.
>
> Aw, diddums.

Yep! That's a magic word that will supposedly get your
idio(syncra)tically formatted commit on the approval fast track.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 08:04:35 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>
>> Better:
>>
>> a = b ? (c ? d : e) :
>> f ? (g ? h : i) :
>> j;
>
> Better still (fewer confusing parentheses):
>
> a =
> b ?
> c ? d : e
> : f ?
> g ? h : i
> : j;

I find this more confusing than the parentheses.

>> Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>>
>> (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
>> (f (if g h i))
>> (t j)))
>
> You can?t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:
>
> (setf a
> (cond
> (b
> (if c d e)
> )
> (f
> (if g h i)
> )
> (t
> j
> )
> ) ; cond
> )

If you insist on writing Lisp like that, you might as well do
this:

(ql:quickload :with-c-syntax)
(named-readtables:in-readtable with-c-syntax:with-c-syntax-readtable)

#{
a = b ? (c ? d : e) :
f ? (g ? h : i) :
j;
#}

On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 07:32:26 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:

> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> a =
>> b ?
>> c ? d : e
>> : f ?
>> g ? h : i
>> : j;
>
> I find this more confusing than the parentheses.

Not accustomed to looking at source code in 2D? You have to feel your way
from symbol to symbol like brackets, rather than being able to see overall
shapes?

In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 07:32:26 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>
>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> a =
>>> b ?
>>> c ? d : e
>>> : f ?
>>> g ? h : i
>>> : j;
>>
>> I find this more confusing than the parentheses.
>
> Not accustomed to looking at source code in 2D? You have to feel your way
> from symbol to symbol like brackets, rather than being able to see overall
> shapes?

Says the guy who finds a few brackets so confusing that he Black-formatted
a snippet of Lisp code.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:

> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 07:32:26 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> a =
>>>> b ?
>>>> c ? d : e
>>>> : f ?
>>>> g ? h : i
>>>> : j;
>>>
>>> I find this more confusing than the parentheses.
>>
>> Not accustomed to looking at source code in 2D? You have to feel your
>> way from symbol to symbol like brackets, rather than being able to see
>> overall shapes?
>
> Says the guy who finds a few brackets so confusing that he
> Black-formatted a snippet of Lisp code.

I use the same principles in all my code.

(And I have no idea about this “Black” thing. I just do my thing.)

In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:13:33 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>
>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 07:32:26 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>>>
>>>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Says the guy who finds a few brackets so confusing that he
>> Black-formatted a snippet of Lisp code.
>
> I use the same principles in all my code. (And I have no idea about
> this ?Black? thing. I just do my thing.)

Black is a Python program that formats Python code
almost exactly the way you formatted that snippet of Lisp
code. It's just as ugly in Python as it is in Lisp. Black
spreads by convincing organizations to mandate its use. It's
utterly non-configurable on purpose, in order to guarantee
that eventually, all Python code is made to be as ugly
and unreadable as possible.

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 03:15:16 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:

> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> (And I have no idea about this “Black” thing. I just do my thing.)
>
> Black is a [bla bla bla]

*Yawn*

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 03:15:16 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>
>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> (And I have no idea about this “Black” thing. I just do my thing.)
>>
>> Black is a [bla bla bla]
>
> *Yawn*

The guy was kindly and politely sharing information with you.

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:56:50 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 03:15:16 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (And I have no idea about this “Black” thing. I just do my thing.)
>>>
>>> Black is a [bla bla bla]
>>
>> *Yawn*
>
> The guy was kindly and politely sharing information with you.

Didn’t ask, didn’t know, didn’t care.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:56:50 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 03:15:16 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>>>
>>>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (And I have no idea about this “Black” thing. I just do my thing.)
>>>>
>>>> Black is a [bla bla bla]
>>>
>>> *Yawn*
>>
>> The guy was kindly and politely sharing information with you.
>
> Didn’t ask, didn’t know, didn’t care.

Knock yourself out. You have the freedom to disdain. But this is the
USENET---we don't need to ask for anything here. Every post is an
invitation for conversation (to the interested ones).

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 21:08:11 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:56:50 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 03:15:16 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And I have no idea about this “Black” thing. I just do my thing.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Black is a [bla bla bla]
>>>>
>>>> *Yawn*
>>>
>>> The guy was kindly and politely sharing information with you.
>>
>> Didn’t ask, didn’t know, didn’t care.
>
> Knock yourself out. You have the freedom to disdain.

I was “disdaining” something even the poster who mentioned it didn’t seem
to think much of.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 19:56:50 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 03:15:16 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:
>>>
>>>> In comp.unix.programmer Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (And I have no idea about this “Black” thing. I just do my thing.)
>>>>
>>>> Black is a [bla bla bla]
>>>
>>> *Yawn*
>>
>> The guy was kindly and politely sharing information with you.
>
> Didn’t ask, didn’t know, didn’t care.

That's fine. But in normal polite society, if someone mentions
something and you go out of your way to say you don't know what it is,
that's commonly interpreted as a request for more information about it.

There are a *lot* of things I don't care about. I express that by not
commenting on them.

Try to be less rude.

I'll assume that you don't care about this either; no need to tell us.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

On 2024-08-08, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 13:43:10 -0000 (UTC)
> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> boringly babbled:
>>On 2024-08-06, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Equivalent Lisp, for comparison:
>>>>
>>>> (setf a (cond (b (if c d e))
>>>> (f (if g h i))
>>>> (t j)))
>>>
>>> You can’t avoid the parentheses, but this, too, can be improved:
>>>
>>> (setf a
>>> (cond
>>> (b
>>> (if c d e)
>>> )
>>> (f
>>> (if g h i)
>>> )
>>> (t
>>> j
>>> )
>>> ) ; cond
>>> )
>>
>>Nobody is ever going to follow your idio(syncra)tic coding preferences
>>for Lisp, that wouldn't pass code review in any Lisp shop, and result in
>>patches being rejected in a FOSS setting.
>
> I'm not a Lisp dev, but the original looks far more readable to me.
> His definition of improvement seems to be obfuscation.
>
>

Cond can do if clauses by itself. Your code is overloaded.