Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: "Juan R." <juanrgonzaleza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Jun 2006 08:02:55 -0700
Takehiko Abe wrote:
ii) I tend to think in terms of binary operations and then something as
(* 1 2 3)
looks "non-mathematical". I would prefer
(* * 1 2 3)
Ah. I guess Lisp is not for you then.
I think that either you like it or you hate it on the first
sight. Do not try too hard. It's futile.
Sorry was a typo
(* (* 1 2) 3)
is so LISP as
(* 1 2 3)
My point is that
1 * 2 * 3
is not defined in mathematics.
Somewhat as (5 + 23) is but (5 + 23 + 7) is not and i begin to suspect
(but cannot still prove it 100%) the operation a + b + c is NOT defined
in nature.
Nature talks binary operations. In fact when a chemist write
(A => P)
or
(A + B + C => P)
knows that is not fundamental, just a notational convenience for the
real process.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Takehiko Abe
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Rob Warnock
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- References:
- Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Takehiko Abe
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Takehiko Abe
- Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Next by Date: Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Next by thread: Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|