[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*To*: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions*From*: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:54:19 -0400 (EDT)*Delivered-to*: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20120828.121555.673046846847759951.shiro@xxxxxxxx>*References*: <E1T5yCj-0002HP-1q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120827.084849.350550980193030524.shiro@xxxxxxxx> <E1T659P-0004sq-O5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120828.121555.673046846847759951.shiro@xxxxxxxx>*Reply-to*: dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Shiro Kawai: > I implemented curly-infix notation in Gauche and stated to give > it a try. And I can't help feeling c-exprs and s-exprs don't mix well. ... > Here I pasted some code: https://gist.github.com/3502491 > I took exiting code that used some math (and I remember I wished > to have had infix notation when I wrote them) and converted to C-exprs.... > I started itemizing why they don't mix, but before writing up > a lenghthy email, I'd better check with you if I'm not doing it wrong. I looked further at your pasted code (thanks for doing that). To be honest, I don't think it's terrible at all, I think it's an improvement from traditional s-expressions. From your description, and further looking, I'm guessing it's this kind of code you're unhappy about: (define (S0 λ N) (sum-ec (: n 1 N) {λ * (exp (- {n * λ})) * (- {2 ^^ (ceiling (log n 2))}) * n})) Again, I think this is a *BIG* improvement over traditional s-expressions. I think as infix expressions get long they're less helpful. Since you can CHOOSE when to use them, you can skip it, which is actually an *advantage* over many other languages with built-in infix. Try this: (define (S0 λ N) (sum-ec (: n 1 N) (* λ (exp (- {n * λ})) (- {2 ^^ (ceiling (log n 2))}) n))) Now that said, its inability to handle stuff of the form f(...), such as -(...), is a big drawback. We could add support for neoteric-expressions inside {...} to resolve that; it's an easy spec change, and that specification is mature. So let's see what that would do: (define (S0 λ N) (sum-ec (: n 1 N) {λ * exp(-({n * λ})) * -({2 ^^ ceiling(log(n 2))}) * n})) That's better. Again, kind of long for infix; try this: (define (S0 λ N) (sum-ec (: n 1 N) (* λ exp(-{n * λ}) -{2 ^^ ceiling(log(n 2))} n))) If you don't like the mixing of () and {}, well, we intentionally designed it so that when you have 0 and 1 parameters you can use either. That becomes (back to few lines): (define (S0 λ N) (sum-ec (: n 1 N) {λ * exp{-{{n * λ}}} * -{{2 ^^ ceiling(log(n 2))}} * n})) This compares favorably with full neoteric-expressions, which allow the use of f(x) for (f x) ANYWHERE: define( S0(λ N) sum-ec( (: n 1 N) {λ * exp{-{{n * λ}}} * -{{2 ^^ ceiling(log(n 2))}} * n})) Well, those are a lot of options. In *practice*, what I would do is switch to a NON-infix form once the expression gets to be more than half a line with complex expressions inside them (as shown above). So with curly-infix ONLY I'd do this (as shown above): (define (S0 λ N) (sum-ec (: n 1 N) (* λ (exp (- {n * λ})) (- {2 ^^ (ceiling (log n 2))}) n))) --- David A. Wheeler

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*Shiro Kawai

**References**:**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*David A. Wheeler

**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*Shiro Kawai

**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*David A. Wheeler

**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions***From:*Shiro Kawai

- Prev by Date:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Next by Date:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Previous by thread:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Next by thread:
**Re: SRFI 105: Curly-infix-expressions** - Index(es):