Re: Re: Re: Lightweight syntax: a dissident view
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lightweight syntax: a dissident view
- From: Pierre-Yves Gérardy <pygy79@...>
- Date: 2010年11月24日 18:02:46 +0100
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 17:18, Roberto Ierusalimschy
<roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> For instance:
>
> initial_token = '\'
> separator = '. ('
> final_token = ')'
>
> e.g.: \x.(x+1) \x,y.(x+y) \.(3)
Indeed. I'm not fond of the original lambda notation in computer programs.
I know its historic value, but I think that he constrains of the
parser turn it into a bastardised form that departs a lot from the
original (for the uninformed, see [1]). The dot is superfluous here.
It doesn't make the expression more readable (except perhaps for the
case of the empty argument list). Another, more visible (@, $)[2]
token could be used instead of the backslash (although it is one of
the less semantically charged ones in programming languages, which
makes it a good candidate).
What would you think of having both
`\` args `(` [explist] `)`
and
`\` args `[` chunk `]`
?
-- Pierre-Yves
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus
[2] I'm currently discovering Perl (not by choice), and I can
understand that these sigils give headache to some people...