Jørn Inge Vestgården":
> Some comments from the sideline.
>
> - Infix can be semantically equivalent to s-expression, as the infix
> macro I have put on "http://folk.uio.no/jornv/infpre/infpre.html";.
> This means that 1 + 2 + 3 translates to (+ 1 2 3) rather than (+ (+ 1 2) 3)
Agree. In my "cur
Title: FreeCode Signature
David A. Wheeler wrote:
Egil Möller:
When I wrote sugar/I-expressions, I realized the need for having a list
as the first item in another list, but that it was only used in let...
It would be trivial to introduce a new macro := that only allows one
assign
Egil Möller:
>When I wrote sugar/I-expressions, I realized the need for having a list
>as the first item in another list, but that it was only used in let...
>It would be trivial to introduce a new macro := that only allows one
>assignment, and has the form (:= (variable value) expression), which
Title: FreeCode Signature
(let ((a 1))
(cond ((null a) 0)
(t 1)))
has a lot of brackets, in my opinion too many, since it could have been
(let (a 1)
(cond (null a) 0
t 1))
which is also s-_expression_. However, I've got bad feelings changing
basic forms like th
Some comments from the sideline.
- Infix can be semantically equivalent to s-expression, as the infix
macro I have put on "http://folk.uio.no/jornv/infpre/infpre.html";.
This means that 1 + 2 + 3 translates to (+ 1 2 3) rather than (+ (+ 1
2) 3)
- Infix is mainly useful in long-winded math expres
