Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
2 points by bayareaguy 6170 days ago | link | parent

Something doesn't look right here. I think I know what you're trying to propose but if

    foo:
        bar
        baz
is the same as

    foo bar baz
and

    if (predicate):
        (then-instr)
        (else-instr)
is the same as

    if (predicate) (then-instr) (else-instr)
then shouldn't the second example

    + 1:
        * x x
        * y y
be the same as

    + 1 * x x * y y
?

Or alternately if the indented lines gain implicit parens shouldn't

     foo:
        bar
        baz
be the same as

    foo (bar) (baz)

?


3 points by fmota 6170 days ago | link

Yes, you stumbled right into the problem with this scheme. But it's not really a problem if you accept PG's idea that parens are allowed to be implicit whenever that is the only thing that makes sense.

So, in the case of

    + 1:
        * x x
        * y y
The parens around * x x and * y y are implicit.

-----