|Current work in compiler/language design. hackeron@Athena.MIT.EDU (Harris L. Gilliam - MIT Project Athena) (1991-11-10)|
|Re: Current work in compiler/language design. firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-11-20)|
|Is Lisp syntax unnatural? email@example.com (1991-11-25)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Ilan CARON)|
|Date:||25 Nov 91 03:59:50 GMT|
In article 91-11-081 email@example.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:
>Natural syntax : if a plus b times c equals zero ...
>Typical syntax : if a + b * c == 0 then ...
>Unnatural syntax : (if (== (+ a (* b d)) 0 ) ... )
>Like this syntax or not it is not natural, most people
>do expressions infix.
But it's regular and predictable -- even humans like that sometimes (not
Most people (unless they're using Forth) use prefix notation anyway for
everything but infix algebraic operators that their language happens to
know about. I.e. we're all very comfortable with functional syntax (for
Even though I use C++ exclusively now, I'm hard pressed to make the case
that it has a natural syntax. Certainly e.g. "," is abused, not to
mention "::" (which is both a binary infix operator and a unary prefix
--ilan caron (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.