On May 28, 11:33 ¨Βν¬ ΚανεΒςιτΌκανεσ®βς®®®ΐηναιμ®γονχςοτεΊ
>
> No, it's a signal to the human reading the code as well.
>
> > Code speaks louder, right? The whole point of writing code is to tell
> > the interpreter what you want it to do,
>
> I'm with Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman on this point:
>
> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
> machines to execute."

Have you noticed that your post is broken into paragraphs, and those
paragraphs are delimited solely by whitespace, and this does not
impair readability?

Have you noticed that this post contains quotes from you, and the
quotes from you contain quotes from me, and these quotes are delimited
from each other solely by indentation, and this does not impair
readability?

> But we're back in the realm of subjectivity regarding what is "bare
> minimum of code" and "superfluous".  ¨Βυβγουμβε ναδε ρυιττεςσε¬ βυ> that's not a proper goal.
>
> There is value in redundancy, and the trick is to find the right
> balance, not to eliminate it completely.

Since we're in the realm of the subjective, I don't understand why you
and others are fighting so hard against having the _option_ of
syntactic indentation. Why are you so gung-ho on forcing your own
subjective interpretation of the "right balance" of useless redundancy
on everyone else?

> Programming is a form of technical writing; judicious use of white space
> is a critical means of communicating with the reader.
>
> Some times I really do
> want to do this.
>
> This is a powerful option.

Can you cite some real world code, preferably in a widely-used
library, that does this?