From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2005-07-19T06:21:55+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] "poetry" mode (was: Re: What does this construct mean?)

Hi --

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David A. Black wrote:
>
>> Hi --
>> 
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Ara.T.Howard wrote:
>> 
>>> which just reads quite nicely without parens and last, but not least, 
>>> those of
>>> us who've detest any extra chars in code like '$', ';', and even parens. 
>>> they
>>> don't call it 'poetry' mode for nothing ;-)
>> 
>> Actually, they do :-)  This came up on IRC recently, and I still don't
>> know the answer: why is the non-use of parentheses referred to as
>> "poetry mode", when plenty of poems contain parentheses?  It's never
>> made any sense to me.
>
> parens, in ruby anyhow, don't do anything except specify precendence to the
> interpreter - much as in mathematics.  imagine if we all wrote (in hand on
> paper - not in code)
>
>  a = (b + (c / 2))
>
> it would be all line noise.  i think the 'poetry' bit makes sense since 
> poetry,
> when compared to 'normal' writing is clearly an attempt to distill an ideal,
> feeling, emotion, etc. into a few select words arranged to maximize there
> meaning - and yet leave room for interpretation.  punctuation is for clarity
> where it is needed but obfusicates otherwise (as the example above shows i
> think).

I think you'd have to go beyond (b + (c / 2)) to illustrate really
obscure or obfuscated punctuation :-)  In any case, one has to
conclude reluctantly that readability and clarity end up being in the
eye of the beholder.  (I wish I could believe it were otherwise, but
the things done in Ruby in the name of clarity are often so unclear to
me as to force me to that conclusion :-)  The whole "poetry" thing, I
think, comes from something else.  I don't think it's just a
compliment (calling something "poetry" because it's clear and free of
non-technically-mandated punctuation), but it can't really be about
clarity in a transcendent sense.

My favorite example of (what to me is) great unclarity introduced by
the absence of optional parentheses is:

   def a b, c = 1

Of course I know enough to parse it visually, but I don't take it in
as readily in a glance as:

   def a(b,c=1)

I'm not out to convince other people that their brains work the same
way mind does; but I'd definitely rule out a universal "less
punctuation makes things clearer" axiom, based on this and other
examples.

> in this sense using minimal (not none!) punctuation seems congruent
> with the idea of writing poetry - at least to me.  consider:
>
>  My legacy -
>  What will it be?
>  Flowers in spring,
>  The cuckoo in summer,
>  And the crimson maples
>  Of autumn ...
>
> or
>
>  My legacy -
>  What will it be?
>  Flowers in spring,
>  The cuckoo in summer,
>  And the crimson maples (Of autumn).

Well, you could put a bright red dot on the Mona Lisa and conclude
that red was a bad color for art because it ruined the painting :-)  I
don't think parentheses used by an author are a determinant of a
text's status as poetry or prose.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net