[jacknews]

+1 for tofeescript.

'Civet' certainly implies your code is being processed, but I'm not sure the connotation is desirable.

And all IMHO of course, but significant-whitespace is the worst idea ever.

[chowells]

Wait, what's wrong with making sure indentation and code structure are always the same? Lying indentation structure is always wrong.

[jacknews]

It's easy to auto-format according to character syntax, not so easy when the format is the syntax.

Simple copy/paste is enough to break significant-whitespace, let alone space-vs-tabs, etc, etc.

But again, all IMHO, I realise it has it's fans.

[nkozyra]

> I'm not sure the connotation is desirable.

You'd think not, and yet ...

[Yahivin]

Civets, they're nature's transpilers.

[capableweb]

> significant-whitespace is the worst idea ever

Hear hear! I never heard a single argument for significant invisible characters that makes sense, ever.

Who would want to have a program that fails because you used invisible character X instead of invisible character Y?

[lmm]

A distinction between invisible character X and invisible character Y is a terrible idea. But indentation is very much visible; it's generally more significant to the reader than braces are, so it should be that significant to the computer too.