Consider the following syntax:
{x ,op y}
The "simple" curly-infix rules require that the even parameter be a
*symbol*. So the above syntax becomes (nfx x ,op y).
But a user might consider {<x> <y> <z>} to be (<y> <x> <z>),
regardless of what our specs says, simply because every '{<x> <y> <z>}
he or she reasonably tries turns into '(<y> <x> <z>).
Thus, the user *might* reasonably expect {x ,op y} to be (,op x y)
--
This approach gets problems though.
1. Is this "special" case reserved only for 3-element lists (i.e. we
have a "binary" curly-infix notation where {x y z} is (y x z) for all
y)? Then the case, when extended {x ,op y ,op z} suddenly becomes
(nfx x ,op y ,op z)
2. Is this special case an extension for "simple" curly-infix
notation, where we drop the "symbol" requirement and compare with....
what? equal? Then it seems to invite abuse of the form {x (lambda (x
y) (+ x y)) y (lambda (x y) (+ x y)) z}
---
Hmm....
Maybe this is just an edge case we're better off not wasting our time with....
Sincerely,
AmkG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
