Resend to list, sorry keep pressing the wrong button...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alan Manuel Gloria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Nov 30, 2007 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Readable-discuss] (Email by Dave Herman) -
sweet-expressions update (and+or are more complicat
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 29, 2007 12:12 PM, David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since "and" and "or" are almost universally special cases in Lisp-like
> languages anyway, I think sweet-expressions ought to allow them as infix
> operators as well (probably in uppercase and lowercase forms). Thus, this
> would be legal:
> if {{x > 2} and {y < 3}}
> 'goodness
> 'badness
>
define-infix and
define-infix or
#|theoretical, future infix operator,
which is like <=*=>, but foos the
bar instead of quuxing it.
|#
define-infix convoke
if {p1 convoke p2}
'worked
'didntwork
> I originally didn't permit this in sweet-expressions, because I worried about
> existing code like this:
> '(Mary and Martha)
> But if (...) will only be used to surround "strict s-expressions", and [...]
> force "no infix" interpretation, then this is no longer a problem.
Hmm, I thought {} for "infix interpretation", everything else being no
infix? It seems in most of your later samples, {} is used around
infixes.
>
> Yeah, I know about exclusive-or, but it's rare and there's less consensus on
> its name. So adding it also doesn't seem worthwhile.
>
> I don't know of any other infix operators that are ALSO special forms (other
> than "and" and "or"). Anyone?
convoke?
Hmm gotta keep a G-rated brain - go-voke?
Sincerely,
AmkG
