n+k patterns

[rabin]

Phil Wadler says:

   You are quite right.  I'd forgotten about local rebinding,
   because I feel that all local rebinding should be disallowed.
   Anyone want to start a movement to eliminate local
   rebinding?  (1/2 :-)  Cheers,  -- P

And *I* think we should stop using names altogether and program in
terms of SKI combinators!  Since these constructs have well-known,
unchanging meanings there is little chance that a program will be
misunderstood*.  I don't know about the rest of the people reading
this, but I find the notation S(S(S(KS)K))((S(S(KS)K))(KI)) =
(S(S(KS)K))(S(S(KS)K))(KI) to be much more precise than the n+k
equivalent, 1 + 1 = 2.  The similarity of the latter notation to the
informal numerals of everyday life is an open invitation to sloppy
reasoning leading to widespread program bugs.  Besides, anybody who
can't handle needless complexity shouldn't be fooling around with
dangerous machines such as computers.

  -- Dan Rabin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

*in fact, there is little chance that a program will be understood,
period.