Having the infix expression reader fall back to emitting calls to a user-provided `nfx' macro seems clever at first glance, but it's insufficient. Different pr

Having the infix expression reader fall back to emitting calls to a user-provided `nfx' macro seems clever at first glance, but it's insufficient. Different programs/libraries are likely to likely to implement `nfx' in different ways, and thus step on each other. I think (for Common Lisp) it will be necessary to do something like this: create a generic function `translate-nfx' which uses `eql' dispatching on the first operator, and set up the `nfx' macro to call it: (defmacro nfx (&rest stuff) (translate-nfx (cadr stuff) stuff)) (defmethod translate-nfx ((op (eql '+)) stuff) ...) This creates an extensible framework where packages can supply `translate-nfx' methods for their operations. It would probably be worth predefining methods for CL arithmetic operations, so that users don't wind up doing that in incompatible ways. I'm afraid that means choosing a precedence scheme, which Wheeler was trying to avoid (for good reason); I don't see a way around it, though.