Re: If you were to implement the original relation algebra language...

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:AETvb.279515$Tr4.859792_at_attbi_s03...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:m_2dnes63Z0zKSKiRVn-vg_at_golden.net...
> > "Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message
> > news:Q6Ovb.208724$275.779602_at_attbi_s53...
> > >
> > > I think we would be better off providing the language with enough
> > > flexibility so that the programmer can choose the most appropriate
> > > form of expression at the time. cf. Haskell.
> >
> > Are you suggesting you prefer redundant languages?
>
> Sometimes I have trouble understanding what you mean
> because you are so very terse.

You seem to have understood well enough.

> I think my feeling towards redundancy in languages is
> that it's useful in modest amounts. I think Perl's TMTOWTDI
> attitude is suboptimal, but I don't think I'd like a language
> that was at the opposite extreme any more.
>
> In particular, I don't want a language to restrict itself exclusively
> to infix operators, or to restrict itself exclusively to prefix operators.
> I don't like Lisp's prefix-only syntax much, for example.
>
> Traditional prefixed function-call syntax works pretty well, but
> binary arithmetic operators work best as infix.
>
> But of all the choices for prefix vs. infix, I think I like Haskell's
> best. You can declare your own operators, and they can be
> infix or prefix. With special syntax, you can use infix operators
> as prefix operators, and vice versa. With modest usage, this
> improves clarity.

To summarize, the redundancy you favour is limited with simple direct mappings between the options.

> I'm happy giving the programmer the flexibility to pick the right
> syntax for the current context. YMMV.

Fair enough. What contexts favour prefix and what contexts favour infix? Received on Sun Nov 23 2003 - 02:15:58 CET