Quick addendum: > Infix notation can be achieved unambiguously if you use LL(1) with > backtracking instead of just LL(1) by accepting expressions in the form > "(a b c)" that become "b(a, c)". This is unambiguous only if you do not > allow including useless parenthesis around expressions
This would not be a good idea. Students are taught that infix goes hand-in-hand with useless parens -- "if in doubt, add parentheses, you can add as many as you want". So giving them infix syntax but NOT permitting useless parens would fry their circuits. Shriram _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
