4 ms·

Having followed this fairly closely, I will drop a though here while it is in my head. Surely there would be no obstacle to supporting s-expression syntax and a

by tgbugs 7y ago

Having followed this fairly closely, I will drop a though here while it is in my head. Surely there would be no obstacle to supporting s-expression syntax and allowing additional syntax around it. Everyone seems to see this as either-or, but is it really truly impossible to have a set of rules that say "you can't start a valid sexp with `(4` so this must be the start of an infix expression" and "you can start an sexp with `(add1` so I'll keep going"? Yes there will be a cost in the reader, but moving away from sexps is already going to be costly in that sense. Further, if we are going to incur the cost of a major complication of the parsing implementation, then why not go all out and allow interleaved expressions? What are the ambiguous cases that make this impossible?

a_lieb 7y ago
I've always wondered if a good way to do infix would be to simply have the ability to mark an item with a character that means "move this to the front of the expression." Let's say the char is ":". Then this: (1 :+ 2) Would be converted to this: (+ 1 2) It would also allow for arbitrary placement, so you can do goofy stuff like pretend to be Forth without writing custom macros for the situation: (1 2 3 4 5 :+) Whether or not that part is an advantage is another story ;) This doesn't solve the "too many parens" problem, because you still have parens, but it does solve the "prefix math looks weird" problem. It's quite a bit simpler than what Dylan does, in that there's no special concept of "binary operators" and it's obvious at a glance how everything converts to sexps.
- hyperion2010 7y ago
  Racket currently has something like this for certain operators. `. -> . ` will allow the arrow to sit in between inputs and outputs in contracts.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    > for certain operators AFAIK it works for any operator that takes two operands (or more, but it makes less sense to be using it with three or more operands.) e.g: > '(arg0 . operator . arg1 arg2) '(operator arg0 arg1 arg2)
  - a_lieb 7y ago
    Ah, interesting—thanks for pointing that out. That is practically the same thing. I only wonder if the fact that it's two dots tends to discourage it from general use for things like arithmetic, compared to a single character.
- slaymaker1907 7y ago
  You could do this in Racket by messing with #%app. Supporting arbitrary infix operators could be a bit tricky, but just doing standard math ones wouldn’t be too difficult.
- breck 7y ago
  That’s an interesting idea. “Markfix” Notation? How would it work if you had 2+ operators in one line?
  - a_lieb 7y ago
    Good question--just stack them up on the left on the same order as they appear in the expression, I guess.

by tgbugs 7y ago

a_lieb 7y ago

I've always wondered if a good way to do infix would be to simply have the ability to mark an item with a character that means "move this to the front of the expression." Let's say the char is ":". Then this: (1 :+ 2) Would be converted to this: (+ 1 2) It would also allow for arbitrary placement, so you can do goofy stuff like pretend to be Forth without writing custom macros for the situation: (1 2 3 4 5 :+) Whether or not that part is an advantage is another story ;) This doesn't solve the "too many parens" problem, because you still have parens, but it does solve the "prefix math looks weird" problem. It's quite a bit simpler than what Dylan does, in that there's no special concept of "binary operators" and it's obvious at a glance how everything converts to sexps.

hyperion2010 7y ago
Racket currently has something like this for certain operators. `. -> . ` will allow the arrow to sit in between inputs and outputs in contracts.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > for certain operators AFAIK it works for any operator that takes two operands (or more, but it makes less sense to be using it with three or more operands.) e.g: > '(arg0 . operator . arg1 arg2) '(operator arg0 arg1 arg2)
- a_lieb 7y ago
  Ah, interesting—thanks for pointing that out. That is practically the same thing. I only wonder if the fact that it's two dots tends to discourage it from general use for things like arithmetic, compared to a single character.
slaymaker1907 7y ago
You could do this in Racket by messing with #%app. Supporting arbitrary infix operators could be a bit tricky, but just doing standard math ones wouldn’t be too difficult.
breck 7y ago
That’s an interesting idea. “Markfix” Notation? How would it work if you had 2+ operators in one line?
- a_lieb 7y ago
  Good question--just stack them up on the left on the same order as they appear in the expression, I guess.