3 ms·

If you have Quicklisp[1] installed you can install the "infix" package and get infix notation in Common Lisp[2]: $ sbcl This is SBCL 1.2.4.debian, an i

by rol 11y ago

If you have Quicklisp[1] installed you can install the "infix" package and get infix notation in Common Lisp[2]: $ sbcl This is SBCL 1.2.4.debian, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp. More information about SBCL is available at <http://www.sbcl.org/>. > (ql:quickload 'infix) ; Loading package (INFIX) > #i(1 + 1) ; addition 2 > #i(2^^128) ; exponentiation 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 > (defun factorial (x) #i(if x == 0 then 1 else x * factorial(x-1))) ; infix function call FACTORIAL > (factorial 5) 120 > #i(factorial(5) / factorial(6)) 1/6 > '#i((a + b) * (c + d)) ; Put a ' before the #i() to see what code is generated (* (+ A B) (+ C D)) -- [1] - https://www.quicklisp.org/beta/ https://www.quicklisp.org/beta/ [2] - Don't know if there is a similar package for Scheme.

adwf 11y ago
I wouldn't recommend using infix libraries if you really want to get into Common Lisp though. They're a bit of a crutch for people coming from other languages, but that's it. Pretty much the whole language is based on Polish notation. The sooner you realise that + - * / are just function names like any other, the better you'll do. For example: (+ 1 2 3) in plain symbols is just: (function parameter parameter parameter) But if I were to write my own addition function: (addition 1 2 3) it would also be: (function parameter parameter parameter) and so is: (http-request "http://www.google.com") (function parameter) If you use infix notation, you're writing half your code in a competely different semantic to the other half. I can't imagine it helping people really get a proper grasp of how Common Lisp works.
jrapdx3 11y ago
> Don't know if there is a similar package for Scheme. I have to agree with others in the thread that infix in Lisp/Scheme is not the convention, and IMO an awkward fit. Don't recall encountering infix in any published/shared code I've seen, it may exist, but to learn Scheme becoming comfortable with s-expr notation is definitely necessary. However, there is SRFI 105[0] which describes "curly infix expressions". It's implemented in Guile 2.x, possibly available in a few others but evidently not had a lot of uptake among Schemes. [0] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/srfi-105.html http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/srfi-105.html Edit: added URL

by rol 11y ago

adwf 11y ago

I wouldn't recommend using infix libraries if you really want to get into Common Lisp though. They're a bit of a crutch for people coming from other languages, but that's it. Pretty much the whole language is based on Polish notation. The sooner you realise that + - * / are just function names like any other, the better you'll do. For example: (+ 1 2 3) in plain symbols is just: (function parameter parameter parameter) But if I were to write my own addition function: (addition 1 2 3) it would also be: (function parameter parameter parameter) and so is: (http-request "http://www.google.com") (function parameter) If you use infix notation, you're writing half your code in a competely different semantic to the other half. I can't imagine it helping people really get a proper grasp of how Common Lisp works.

jrapdx3 11y ago

> Don't know if there is a similar package for Scheme. I have to agree with others in the thread that infix in Lisp/Scheme is not the convention, and IMO an awkward fit. Don't recall encountering infix in any published/shared code I've seen, it may exist, but to learn Scheme becoming comfortable with s-expr notation is definitely necessary. However, there is SRFI 105[0] which describes "curly infix expressions". It's implemented in Guile 2.x, possibly available in a few others but evidently not had a lot of uptake among Schemes. [0] http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/srfi-105.html http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/srfi-105.html Edit: added URL