Re: Pythonic indentation (or: beating a dead horse)

On May 21, 10:33 pm, Tony Arcieri <[e-mail]> wrote:
> My claims were it's impossible with a Pythonic lexer and a backing context
> free grammar.  I certainly didn't claim that if you throw enough regexes at
> the problem it won't go away.

Tony, while I may be a newb to Ruby, I assure you that I'm no stranger
to mailing lists and Usenet, and I'm aware of these things called
"archives". Perhaps you are too. If not, allow me to demonstrate:

On May 19, 3:23 pm, Tony Arcieri <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM, J Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I think code blocks are cool, and I love Ruby's very flexible
> > expressiveness. I dig the way every statement is an expression
> These are both incompatible with a Python-style indentation sensitive
> syntax.  You can have the Pythonic indent syntax or a purely expression
> based grammar with multi-line blocks.  You can't have both.

And yet here I've _demonstrated_ having both, while repeatedly asking
you for examples to exhibit the "incompatibility", and repeatedly
shooting down every one you've so proudly produced. In the quoted text
above, please note the absence of words like "lexer" and "backing
context free grammar". In fact, you were quite explicit about Pythonic-
style indentation _syntax_ being the problem. You stood behind that
claim several times. Now tell me, Tony, was that claim correct, or was
it wrong?

Now getting back to your amended claim, that it's impossible with a
Python lexer and a backing context free grammar, well, let's not
forget that Ruby-style blocks themselves are impossible. Yes,
completely impossible! Can't be done! You just can't have Ruby-style
blocks, there's no way to make them work... with the Commodore BASIC
interpreter, a ham sandwich, and half a ton of elephant dung. I
realize that this is a bold claim to make, but I'm gonna stand by it
without fear.

As I've said before, this isn't Python. And whether or not my proposal
would be possible in a Python parser is of absolutely no interest to
me. Clearly it _is_ possible in Ruby's parser, it's even possible in
Ruby itself.

> Well great!  I'm not really sure how that script works, but cool.  However,
> what you have there is a marked departure from how Python actually works.

Oh noes!! You mean my Ruby script is a marked departure from Python?
Heaven forfend!

> And sorry to be frank about this:

No, you're not. Not even a tiny bit.

> I've been cordial and fact oriented in
> this discussion,

Actually, Tony, I've found you to be arrogant and condescending
throughout. I've merely responded in kind.

> Not only are you strawmanning me here, you're being a right c--t.

I'm strawmanning? *I'm* strawmanning?? Thanks for the tip, Mr. Your-
Proposal-Is-Impossible-But-Only-If-I-Set-Ridiculous-Conditions-Such-As-
Requiring-Python's-Parser-For-Some-Reason. And have you forgotten
this?

> And a bit of supplemental information:  I conducted a poll of what Rubyists'
> favorite features are in the language.  Blocks were #1 by a wide margin.

Clearly, this one deserves at least honorable mention on the all-time
list of most flagrant strawmen. I think you're projecting.

And by the way, I've heard that in other English-speaking countries,
the profanity you used is not considered as shockingly offensive as it
is in the United States. Perhaps you're from one of those countries
and are unaware that in America it's among the most vile of curse
words. I know that you, with your emphasis on cordiality and fact-
orientation, will appreciate me bringing this to your attention.

That being said I will plead guilty to being a terrible spokesman for
my ideas (and this extends well beyond the current discussion) because
I lack tact, empathy, and sensitivity... in short, I'm an asshole (and
not, as you suggested, someplace a couple of inches anterior.) This
has bitten me more times than I can say, but in the end, I gotta be me.