Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
Shiro Kawai
(26 Aug 2012 20:58 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
David A. Wheeler
(27 Aug 2012 00:45 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
Alan Manuel Gloria
(27 Aug 2012 00:54 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
David A. Wheeler
(27 Aug 2012 01:06 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions
Shiro Kawai
(27 Aug 2012 04:28 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions Alan Manuel Gloria (27 Aug 2012 06:14 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions Alan Manuel Gloria 27 Aug 2012 06:14 UTC
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@lava.net> wrote: > From: "David A. Wheeler" <xxxxxx@dwheeler.com> > Subject: Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions > Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:45:28 -0400 (EDT) > >> Shiro Kawai: >>> Probably because of my lack of experience of teaching Lisp family >>> languages to non-Lispers, it is difficult for me to swallow the >>> reasoning of "not having infix notations alienates people". >> >> People typically find familiar notations (or similar ones) easier to use. It's not that one notation is more "natural" in a cosmic sense, it's familiarity. But that MATTERS if someone uses a notation a lot. >> >> The world has *standardized*, and has for hundreds of years, on infix notation for math, especially at the pre-college level. That WILL NOT CHANGE. > > Don't take me wrong. I'm not arguing that. > > In plain words, I'm questioning if you are trying to solve a > right problem in this srfi. > > Surely infix op is a part of a solution, but disregarding other > things that has made infix op actually work, the partial solution > may not be as useful as we hope for, or even harmful. Dunno. But one major use of curly-infix in my own code is with comparison operators like > < = WAAY back in kindergarten my teachers taught me to view > as a mouth. The mouth wants to eat the bigger thing, so it faces the bigger thing. If it's >, the bigger thing is on the left, while if it's <, the bigger thing is on the right. That thing stuck with me since ('coz hey, look, I still remember it! that was when I was like, 3? 4? 5? I'm 29 now. And I distinctly remember it as the kindergarten class). Now, in infix that reasoning holds. In prefix, > has its back turned to the bigger thing, which kind makes it wrong. < looks like it wants to eat everything (greedy mouth!) > Same thing in operator precedence. Surely, no precedence is > simpler and we like simpler rules. But what do we lose for not > having precedence? Note that we don't really lose precedence per se: there's a hook for that (namely `nfx` and `transform-mixed-infix`). We want to reserve the "{" and "}" symbols now for curly-infix, and the community can vote with its feet (i.e. by using or not using particular `nfx` implementations) on what precedence system to use. I (almkglor) personally feel that the issue of precedence is kinda a bit large (come on, surely no one agrees that == binding tighter than bit-level & in C is a good idea), and may require a far longer process than SRFI provides. Further, in math itself the actual precedence used IIRC is not much more than <=> over */ over +-. Some logic books consider a ^ b v c ^ d and a ^ b ^ c as ill-formed in the absence of explicit parenthesis for example. Sincerely, AmkG