4 ms·
The notation the author complains about looks like a broken polish (prefix) notation with added parens. Your notation looks like a very bizare mix of infix arr
by alexvoda 5y ago
The notation the author complains about looks like a broken polish (prefix) notation with added parens.
Your notation looks like a very bizare mix of infix arrangement postfix (RPN) behaviour plus added parens for good measure.
RPN has plenty of benefits, once you get used to its initial awkwardness, that I feel your notation fails to capitalise on.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y ago> The notation the author complains about looks like a broken polish (prefix) notation with added parens. The notation the author complains about is the first version using 'normal' (prefix) functions. a + b = (+)(a, b) = add(a, b) = a `add` b (Haskell infix) = a .add. b (Fortran infix) a * b = (*)(a, b) = mul(a, b) = a `mul` b = a .mul. b so a*(1.0-t) + b*t is (+)(a*(1.0-t), b*t) = (+)((*)(a, 1.0-t), (*)(b, t)) = add(mul(a, 1.0-t), mul(b, t))