home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group02b.txt
/
000015_icon-group-sender_Mon Aug 19 13:01:38 2002.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2003-01-02
|
2KB
Return-Path: <icon-group-sender>
Received: (from root@localhost)
by baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU (8.11.1/8.11.1) id g7JK1Xg13957
for icon-group-addresses; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:01:33 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200208192001.g7JK1Xg13957@baskerville.CS.Arizona.EDU>
From: Jesse Tov <tov@fas.harvard.REMOVE.edu>
X-Newsgroups: comp.lang.icon
Subject: Re: What about "Expressions?" (was Re: Icon Wish List)
Date: 17 Aug 2002 07:31:14 GMT
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
To: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
Status: RO
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>:
> (LET* ((A 1)
> (B (* A 2)))
> (+ A B))
>
> which expands to
> (let ((a 1))
> (let ((b (* a 2)))
> (+ a b)))
So the same as scheme.
>> The horse which raced past the barn collapsed.
>> When I hear it like this, it's ungrammatical to me.
>
> The problem here isn't grammar; it's semantics, and semantics that
> don't make sense.
I disagree---the semantics are fine if "collapsed" is a verb:
The horse collapsed. Which horse collapsed? The horse raced past
the barn collapsed.
It's syntactically ambiguous, and with your parsing, the problem is
semantics, but with my parsing the semantics are fine.
> If we changed the last word from "collapsed" to "upright", it would
> read:
> The horse raced past the barn upright.
"Upright" just removes the ambiguity because it has to parse as an
adjective, and and the syntax tree in which it works (your parsing
above, but not mine) makes sense semantically.
Jesse