In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kirk Sluder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Personally, I've always preferred use the imperative to describe > > _basic_ math rather than the passive. This would seem to map better to > > RPN than infix. (emphasis added) > For writing down complicated, nested expressions too? That's very > unusual. E.g. > > n! = (n/e)**n * sqrt(2*pi*n) * (1 + (1/12n)) * ... > > vs. the same thing in Lisp notation, and that's not even so complicated. I wasn't even talking about Polish notation vs. other standard notations. I was talking about your claimed correspondence between infix and natural Languages. (1/12n) - "divide 1 by the product of" of 12 and n" sqrt(2*pi*n) - "calculate the square root of the product of 2 pi and n." If computer languages were to mimic natural languages on this point, they would support both forms of expression and be sensitive to mode and mood. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
