From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: RFC: Lisp/Scheme with less parentheses through Python-like significant indentation? Date: 2000/08/14 Message-ID: <3175274726953827@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 658285696 References: <3990E003.6EE78131@kurtz-fernhout.com> <3174842187091565@naggum.net> <87zommcdjy.fsf@piracy.red-bean.com> <3174895060471363@naggum.net> <87ya23sd79.fsf@orion.bln.pmsf.de> <3175090263313160@naggum.net> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 966288107 15714 195.0.192.66 (14 Aug 2000 21:21:47 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Aug 2000 21:21:47 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Lieven Marchand | I think the denotational semantics they add to describe each feature | is only understood by a very small percentage of the readers of the | standard and doesn't add much. I considered it a show-off and paid no attention to it whatsoever. | One of the best standards I've read is the ANSI-C(89) one. ISO | mutilated it by eliminating the Rationale. The Ada-95 is very good | to and a vast improvement over the Ada-83. I worked a lot with Ada 83 in the mid- to late 80's and found it appealing that the compilers referred directly to the clauses in the standard. That helped me familiarize myself with the standard in a useful way. What little I have read of Ada 95 is indeed impressive in clarity and language, but it is not enough to pass judgment on the whole huge document. #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.