[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork
From: |
Robin Farine |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:46:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.6.2 |
On Friday 27 August 2004 18.02, John Meinel wrote:
> I still think having the operator *next to* the thing it is
> operating on, rather than having to parse a lot of parenthesis is
> easier. But I will say that if you have a list of things and the
> + operator becomes the sum operator instead, you can clean up
> some things.
Yeah, it is one of the advantages.
> I'm not sure what you are saying about not prefering rules of
> precedence. Perhaps just because it isn't as explicit.
Considering only the syntax, a grammar for infix expressions does
not in general induce a one to one relationship between expressions
and their derivation trees. The only way of removing the resulting
ambiguity is to either use parenthesis around every <operand1,
operator, operand2> triplets, or to add precedence rules that
select one of the derivation trees as the "official" one.
In C for instance, making use of precedence rules to spare a few
( and ) is a good way to force the next developer to stare for a
few minutes at an expression before he finally decides to add the
spared ( and ) for safety.
> I will also say, though, Andrew Suffields alternative Fibbonacci
> sequence using Haskell looks rather clean.
Yes, but it looks clean mainly because of the semantics of the
guards (not unlike how forward inference engines like OPS-5 work by
the way), not really thanks to its syntax.
The nice property of the syntax of Lisp dialects is that everything
is either an atom, an empty list or a list of atoms. A program can
manipulate a program as it manipulates data. I do not know if
Haskell is able to this in such an elegant way, though.
Robin
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Tobias C. Rittweiler, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, John Meinel, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Robin Farine, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, John Meinel, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork,
Robin Farine <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Robin Farine, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Tobias C. Rittweiler, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, James Blackwell, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Tla spork, Robert Collins, 2004/08/30