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).
Currently, you can do:
{a + b + c}
But for unary operations, you must do this with only curly-infix:
{(- a) + b + c}
or you can do this if you're using neoteric-expressions:
{-(a) + b + c}
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.
Then you could do this with just curly-infix:
{{- a} + b + c}
and you could do this with neoteric-expressions:
{-{a} + b + c}
The latter one is because -{a} maps to (- {a}) maps to (- a).
Note that you still use f(a b ...) for function calls when you have a normal
function call with multiple parameters.
Interestingly, {X} makes our (. SYMBOL) escape mechanism suddenly unnecessary,
as long as neoteric-expressions *ALWAYS* also support curly-infix. I'm not
sure we want to remove (. e), though.
Although you could still have improper lists with this, I think adding these
adds enough rules that improper lists should NOT be added at the same time.
--- 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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
