Wouldn't this be better? AFAIK list? implies pair?
define represent-as-infix?(x)
. and
. . list? x
. . symbol? car(x)
. . memq car(x) infix-operators
. . {length(x) >= 3}
. . {length(x) <= 6}
Yeah looks purty.
On 7/19/12, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote:
> When writing iformat.sscm, I'm using sweet-expressions (of course) and I was
> struck at how cleanly this particular function could be expressed:
>
> ; Return #t if x should be represented using curly-infix notation {...}.
> define represent-as-infix?(x)
> . and
> . . pair? x
> . . symbol? car(x)
> . . memq car(x) infix-operators
> . . list? x
> . . {length(x) >= 3}
> . . {length(x) <= 6}
>
> I think this is pretty clean, and I think it shows we're on the right
> track.
>
> --- David A. Wheeler
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Readable-discuss mailing list
> Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
