On Wednesday 25 February 2009 05:53 pm, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 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
-- 
I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I created a video 
instead.--with apologies to Cicero, et.al.