On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:08 AM, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote:
> Earlier I said:
>> I can't believe I'm proposing another change to curly-infix, that's been put
>> in stone for ages. But after fiddling with curly-infix, I have a new idea
>> for handling one and two parameters (3+ parameters are unchanged).
> ...
>> We might make "normal" use of curly-infix more consistent if we interpreted:
>> * Two-parameter {X Y} maps to (X Y).
>> * One-parameter {X} maps to X - note that there is NO list.
>
> The more I look at this, the more I like it.
>
> It turns out this has other benefits too. It means that if someone uses
> neoteric-expressions but uses e{FIRST SECOND}, they're the same as e(FIRST
> SECOND) which is almost certainly what was intended, e.g.:
> f{- x} maps to (f (- x)). You can do that already with f(- x), but I can
> easily imagine someone using curly braces accidentally instead.
Huh? Isn't f(- x) equal to (f - x) ?
>
> In short, this change along with the zero-length changes I recommended
> earlier would mean that neoteric-expressions with short parameter lists would
> do what users probably expect:
> * f{} maps to (f)
> * f{a} maps to (f a)
> * f{a b} maps to (f (a b))
> and that might eliminate a lot of bugs.
>
> Examples:
> * {-{a} / -{b}} maps to (/ (- a) (- b))
> * f{- a} maps to (f (- a))
> * {{+ a} * {- b}} maps to (* (+ a) (- b))
>
> And again, it means that {SYMBOL} is a perfectly good - and less clunky -
> escape mechanism for the special sweet-expression symbols. So you could use
> {!}(5) at the beginning of the line if you insist on using "!" as the name
> for the factorial.
>
> I think of "nfx ..." as a mechanism for handling precedence, to arbitrate
> between different symbols. But on short lists, it makes no sense to
> arbitrate.. better to have a fixed meaning built into the reader, if they
> make sense (and I think these do).
>
> I would call these "short" curly-infix lists. Here's some new text, just
> before "Other infix lists..." in the [Solutions] text on curly-infix:
>
> "An {} maps to (), {e} maps to e, and {e f} maps to (e f)."
Otherwise seems ok...
>
> --- 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
