Nexus Programming Language

[William James]

Yes, definitely. I use emacs with paredit-mode.



Not specifically, but it's a nice side effect.



Yes, definitely. It makes me feel if not at home, at least, at a
strange aunt's, vs. in a totally strange home in a totally strange
land.

This tends to prove the hypothesis that Commune Lisp users are
incapable of becoming fluent in other languages. They lack the
ability to change and to grow; their minds seem to be fossilized.
They believe that the evolution of programming languages ended
with FORTRAN.

 

[Randy Kramer]

I'm not sure how that "seems funny", considering you just confirmed some
of what I said -- that RPN parsers are easier to write than Polish
notation parsers.

Maybe somebody can clarify / remind me of the terminology (it's been a
long time since I really dealt with that stuff--pre-1970 iirc).

Anyway, I remember RPN (Reverse Polish Notation) which is like 3 3 +

I remember infix (notation?) (which is like 3 + 3 =)

Then I remember there was the "inverse" of RPN, which is like + 3 3
(iirc)--is that what you're calling Polish notation (it makes sense,
just wasn't sure) (I think maybe we just called it something like
prefix notation--we referred to prefix, infix, and postfix, with
postfix being RPN)

What I remember is that writing compiler type stuff in RPN (or to
handle RPN) was much easier than for infix notation. I don't remember
doing experimentation with prefix, but I assume we must have (it was
that kind of school).

Randy Kramer

 

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Anyway, I remember RPN (Reverse Polish Notation) which is like 3 3 +

I remember infix (notation?) (which is like 3 + 3 =)

Then I remember there was the "inverse" of RPN, which is like + 3 3
(iirc)--is that what you're calling Polish notation (it makes sense,
just wasn't sure)

Would the "inverse" of reverse polish notation be polish notation?

[3,3,:+].inverse -> undefined method `inverse' for [3, 3, :+]:Array

Seems that's nonsense... On the other hand:

[3,3,:+].reverse -> [:+, 3, 3]

 

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

In the beginning (1920s / 1930s) there was one notation, with
parentheses. We now call that infix, but I don't think it had a name
because it was the only notation anybody used. Then Lukaciewicz
invented Lukaciewicz notation, which was a prefix notation -- operator
followed by operands. Nobody could spell or pronounce his name, so it
became known as Polish notation because he was Polish. It was still
prefix and not widely used until the early days of programming
language.

Then came reverse Polish or postfix notation. So now we have three notations:

Polish, aka prefix
Reverse Polish, aka postfix
normal, aka infix

 

[William James]

(if mandatory
(e = fieldAccess)
(ib = [["." , e , :begin]])
(ie = [["." , e , :end]])
else
(e = [[ "." , fieldAccess , :getValuePtr]])
(ib = [["->" , e , :begin]])
(ie = [["->" , e , :end]])
end)

e, ib, ie =
if mandatory
[ field_access, [["." , e , :begin]], [["." , e , :end]] ]
else
[ [[ "." , field_access , :get_value_ptr]],
[["->" , e , :begin]],
[["->" , e , :end]]
]
end

 

[Jonathan Groll]

Impressive, young Skyparenthesizer. And here I thought Darth Java
had won the Clone/Dup/Bloat War.

No! Please stop. I can't take any more.... Please, before I die
laughing URGGHHHH

 

[Jörg W Mittag]

Actually, this could be much better solved by a well-structured
Signature object à la Python's PEP362 "Function Signature Object":
<http://Python.Org/dev/peps/pep-0362/>

.... which will appear[1] in Ruby 1.9.2. Nice work!

jwm

[1] https://GitHub.Com/RubySpec/MatzRuby/blob/trunk/proc.c#L694-710