--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:48:44PM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2009, at 12:38, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:09:34AM +0900, Ken Bloom wrote:
> >>
> >>"There are no precedence rules applied to operators, they are simply
> >>evaluated from left to right. Operator precedence is explicity =20
> >>applied
> >>with the use of parenthetical expressions. The following example
> >>demonstrates explicit operator precedence."
> >>
> >>Looks like a cross between Ruby and INTERCAL. When =20
> >>1.0+2.0/3.0+4.0=3D5.0,
> >>that's not a good thing, and will confuse most mathemeticians to no =20
> >>end.
> >>And the use of ^ for assignment will also be very unintuitive.
> >
> >This is why I tend to think that positional precedence should always =20
> >use
> >named functions (or methods or whatever) instead of traditional
> >mathematical sigils, and use either prefix or postfix notation.  For
> >instance:
> >
> >   sum( quotient( sum( 1.0, 2.0 ), 3.0 ), 4.0 )
> >
> >. . . or as UCBLogo would put it:
> >
> >   sum quotient sum 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
>=20
>=20
> how about:
>=20
> 1 2 + 3 / 4 +
>=20
> I always liked Forth's RPN simplicity :)

I don't much like combining postfix notation with right-to-left
evaluation.  I tend to think that the notation should "precede" the
operands in the direction in which operations are evaluated.  Of course,
that's more a matter of familiarity and comfort for me than any kind of
objective criteria (other than consistency with traditional function
notation), but it's how I feel.

In other words, if the operator notation is going to be placed to the
right of the operands, I'd prefer operands be evaluated right-to-left.

Of course, I don't think *anyone* would like the way that would look, so
that pretty much breaks down to preferring prefix notation over postfix
notation.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Bill McKibben: "The laws of Congress and the laws of physics have
grown increasingly divergent, and the laws of physics are not likely to
yield."

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmi/PoACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKU0UgCgxFO64fChvzo6cFa8yCf0j6nO
XRgAn3P7V3Oge9i024m4b5WU7Hj7KZVX
=2dby
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24--

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 09:48:44PM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2009, at 12:38, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 01:09:34AM +0900, Ken Bloom wrote:
> >>
> >>"There are no precedence rules applied to operators, they are simply
> >>evaluated from left to right. Operator precedence is explicity =20
> >>applied
> >>with the use of parenthetical expressions. The following example
> >>demonstrates explicit operator precedence."
> >>
> >>Looks like a cross between Ruby and INTERCAL. When =20
> >>1.0+2.0/3.0+4.0=3D5.0,
> >>that's not a good thing, and will confuse most mathemeticians to no =20
> >>end.
> >>And the use of ^ for assignment will also be very unintuitive.
> >
> >This is why I tend to think that positional precedence should always =20
> >use
> >named functions (or methods or whatever) instead of traditional
> >mathematical sigils, and use either prefix or postfix notation.  For
> >instance:
> >
> >   sum( quotient( sum( 1.0, 2.0 ), 3.0 ), 4.0 )
> >
> >. . . or as UCBLogo would put it:
> >
> >   sum quotient sum 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
>=20
>=20
> how about:
>=20
> 1 2 + 3 / 4 +
>=20
> I always liked Forth's RPN simplicity :)

I don't much like combining postfix notation with right-to-left
evaluation.  I tend to think that the notation should "precede" the
operands in the direction in which operations are evaluated.  Of course,
that's more a matter of familiarity and comfort for me than any kind of
objective criteria (other than consistency with traditional function
notation), but it's how I feel.

In other words, if the operator notation is going to be placed to the
right of the operands, I'd prefer operands be evaluated right-to-left.

Of course, I don't think *anyone* would like the way that would look, so
that pretty much breaks down to preferring prefix notation over postfix
notation.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Bill McKibben: "The laws of Congress and the laws of physics have
grown increasingly divergent, and the laws of physics are not likely to
yield."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmi/PoACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKU0UgCgxFO64fChvzo6cFa8yCf0j6nO
XRgAn3P7V3Oge9i024m4b5WU7Hj7KZVX
=2dby
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----