I'm sure this is a minority opinion, but...
It is hard to find a paper on any interesting topic that does
not introduce a new syntax. The business of thinking about
specific issues seems intimately connected to finding a good
representation for the issue in print. It seems clear from this
that
I like the capability to redefine syntax.
For example, I would like to be able to define syntax that looks like
EBNF when writing parsers. I would like to be able to write
E = T {(`+`|`-`) T}
rather than
e = concat1 (t,zeroOrMore (concat2 (alternative (lit '+',lit '-'),t)))
Of course infix
Subject: Re: Arrays and general functions
Reginald Meeson writes
> Interesting discussion, but it seems to me that Haskell already
> provides the best of both worlds, namely
> a. Efficient implementation of arrays as data objects, with indexing
> as a projection function; and
(Actu
David Barton writes:
> >And finally, it makes sense to have separate syntax for arrays and
> >general functions, because different behavior is expected for the two.
>
> Here, I may be exposing my cluelessness, but this seems a (search for
> a better word --- none found) silly statement. There
> From: Paul Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>And finally, it makes sense to have separate syntax for arrays
>>and general functions, because different behavior is expected
>>for the two.
> That argument would suggest that you should use a different
> syntax for each different implem
r the two.
Ken Sailor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
r the two.
Ken Sailor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
