Re: Future of LISP. Alternative to XML. Web 3.0?

Pascal Costanza wrote:
Juan R. wrote:

I am not claiming for an infix input surface (infix (2 + 3)) expanding
to underlying (+ 2 3) like Peter Norvig suggests for next LISP, but for
a built-in infix LISP with prefix and postfix as special cases:

[prearguments #operator postarguments]

[#operator postarguments]

[prearguments #operator]

Yes, this would break with (function.arguments) and maybe would not be
called LISP anymore

Here is an idea: Call it Smalltalk.

I do not usually chose same names for unrelated stuff. But it would be
noted that special construct [#operator postarguments] can be managed
in very similar way to (function.arguments) and could be done
equivalent with an intermediate layer to CL/Scheme. I think that any
LISP form has an equivalent form

[#PLUS 2 3] <---> (PLUS 2 3)

It is interesting also that general form [prearguments #operator
postarguments] is close to rationale for the generalization (annotation
function.arguments) suggested for next 'LISP' i.e. Arc.


Relevant Pages