3 ms·

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any infix notation on the linked page.

• justin_vanw 14y ago
  (car x) == (first x) (car nil) => NIL Shouldn't they say, for example: (eq (car x) (first x)) Sure, it's the same, both imply a test for equality or in this case an assertion of equality. However, '==' is not part of this language and there is reason to use it other than the alternative is less obvious and clear.
  • pg 14y ago
    No, you're confusing expressions with metanotation. Using infix metanotation to describe Lisp semantics is a convention that goes back to McCarthy.
  • bcoates 14y ago
    It's pretty universal to use syntax that's outside the domain of the language being described to describe a language in it's specification, otherwise your head would explode trying to distinguish the example from the rule. The C++ standard uses tables for the equivalent purpose, not C++ declarations, like at §23.2.1 in C++11. Does this mean that C++ should move from header files to an RDBMS?
  • jonpeda 14y ago
    eq == == This is true in both infix notation and in prefix notation.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]