[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*: almkglor@xxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: curly-infix in dotted notation*From*: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:44:09 -0400 (EDT)*Cc*: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <CAF+kUQXLcfcnQ-yUAhw_dFhHs56g-yKU=5XUX=EnVK1ZrsQwaA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <CAF+kUQXLcfcnQ-yUAhw_dFhHs56g-yKU=5XUX=EnVK1ZrsQwaA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Reply-to*: dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Alan Manuel Gloria: > You know, an s-expr of the form: > > (superop op a b c ...) > > can be expressed in a curly-infix dotted notation as: > > (superop . {a op b op c op ...}) Good point. Should we note that somewhere, e.g., the rationale or example? --- David A. Wheeler

**References**:**curly-infix in dotted notation***From:*Alan Manuel Gloria

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Are we done? Are other changes needed to maximize adoption?** - Next by Date:
**Re: Are we done? Are other changes needed to maximize adoption?** - Previous by thread:
**curly-infix in dotted notation** - Next by thread:
**Please update SRFI-105 - again!** - Index(es):