Re: [stack] syntax preference question

I _like_ Slava's code there.

John Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the cleave combinators were type-aware (which is almost certainly a
> bad idea), we could do away with the arity notations. Further hell
> could result from making ',' infix and using brackets to disambiguate
> only when necessary:
>   t @/ t sq 4 / x - sqrt `[-2 /] +,-
> Alright, enough perversity for now.

Keep in mind that these "cleave combinators" are not actually
combinators in this little language... They're part of the language's
syntax. As such, it might possibly _not_ be a bad idea to make them
participate in the typesystem.

I'd also like to see some thought (i.e. I'm lazy and I don't want to
spend my own time and energy THINKING) on cleave notation/syntax. The
combinators we know about now are obviously very good, but it's not
always easy to read code with them; one possible blockage is that they
postpone the simple action which _actually_ appears at the beginning
of a set of functions to instead appear at the end. This is one thing
I think c-expressions gets right.

By the way, are s-expressions the same as c-expressions, but with
Scheme-like function positioning instead of C-like function
positioning?

(Frankly, I'm astounded to watch myself writing in favor of more syntax.)

> - John

-Wm