home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!cs.widener.edu!eff!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!alex!dave
- From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
- Subject: Re: how to advocate new software/hardware features (Re: Hardware Support for Numeric Algorithms)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov18.002115.12067@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Organization: University of Chicago
- References: <BxtFoF.BGn@mentor.cc.pur <KERS.92Nov17090305@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <Bxvs9I.L22@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:21:15 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <Bxvs9I.L22@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
- >
- >I agree that this complexity of syntax analysis is very weak. Put one
- >precedence for unary operators and another for binary operators, or even
- >equate the infix notation x FOO y with !FOO(x,y); those of us who want
- >to use user-defined operators would find this a lot preferable to not
- >allowing them at all, even if we had to use parentheses all the time.
-
- So you're advocating that a programming language implement a syntax which
- is directly incompatible with that commonly used in mathematics. Addition,
- multiplication, and exponentiation certainly have different precedences in
- common usage. How many times, I wonder, have you against precisely that sort
- of language construction.
-
- However, you did suggest something that had been implemented dozens of times
- over the last twenty years. There is still hope for you.
-
- --
- Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
- Department of Surgery dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
- Strong currency, strong whiskey, and strong typing
-