+1 on all counts. Good post. On Nov 29, 2007 7:19 PM, Andrew Gaylard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 29, 2007 6:36 PM, Igor Stasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And from this point, ask yourself, why precedence rules, which we > > learn in school have defined in that way? Is there any other ways, how > > they can be defined? Is there any other math operators, except +,*,-,/ > > exists? What is math operator at all? How many of them we can define > > and introduce? Should we always tend to define a precedence rules for > > these new math operators? This is the first questions which you should > > teach and answer before proceeding further. > > Reverse polish notation is a great example of math code without > operator precedence. Yes, it takes time to learn. It took me several > days to learn -- actually, to "unlearn" what had been drilled into me > at school. But now I am *much* more productive (there's that word) > on a RPN calculator than I ever was on an algebraic one. And my > five-year-old daughter needed to be shown only *once* how to use > RPN before she got it. > > Simplicity and generality trumps complexity every time. > > Waldemar: Remember that this is a tool for building tools. If you > really want operator precedence, then it'll be easy to create it in > your own code. But please don't force the rest of us to. > > Ian: Please try bring as little as possible of the mainstream software > world's baggage into *OLA. Otherwise the future you guys are trying > to create will end up looking an awful lot like the present. I for one > am longing to see something that's far better (and different) than > what we have currently live with. > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
