Do I Really Need a Programming Language?

Re:Do I Really Need a Programming Language? by brudgers on Sunday December 29, 2013 @09:51AM (#6979668)

Racket lets you use infix operators if you want:

     (5 . * . 3)  ; 15
     (5 . > . 3)  ; #t

As a bonus, you even get more verbose syntax as in other languages, because Racket, being a Lisp will let you write code any old which way so long as there is a macro available to parse it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I Really Need a Programming Language? by kroger on Sunday December 29, 2013 @10:14AM (#6979754)

There are many infix macros for Common Lisp. This one [1], for instance, allows you to write:

#I( x^^2 + y^^2 )

And, naturally, you can macroexpand the macro.

[1] ftp://ftp.cs.cmu.edu/user/ai/lang/lisp/code/syntax/infix/infix.cl

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I Really Need a Programming Language? by brudgers on Sunday December 29, 2013 @10:47AM (#6979888)

The difference, if there is one, is that Racket provides an infix syntax as part of its definition, i. e. there is a standard notation. I''ve seen it used in the reference documentation for the -> operator when writing contracts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I Really Need a Programming Language? by kroger on Sunday December 29, 2013 @04:23PM (#6981448)

Racket is a scheme, but this infix notation is unique to racket, i.e. it's not in the scheme specification. In fact, there are other proposals for infix notation for scheme, such as http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-105/srfi-105.html

[ Parent | on HN ]