Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Darren New <dnew@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 20:42:38 GMT
Juan R. wrote:
Moreover (a +b + c) appears to be not defined in nature. Apparently
nature likes binary and infix.
I point to the three-body problem, in which (a+b) and (b+c) and (a+c) are all well-defined, but (a+b+c) is intractable.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Native Americans used every part
of the buffalo, including the wings.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Harald Hanche-Olsen
- 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
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: Why is LISP syntax superior?
- From: Juan R.
- Why is LISP syntax superior?
- Prev by Date: Re: Do you remap your keyboard for lisp?
- 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
|