![]() ![]() ![]() This is purely a matter of screen presentation underlying systems canĬontinue to use s-expressions, unchanged.įor example, here’s a trivial Common Lisp program Various extensions (optional syntactic sugar) That can be viewed as an essentially backward-compatible extensionĪ sweet-expression reader can accept typicalĬleanly-formatted s-expressions without change, but it also supports It then defines a particular way of combining these approaches, called Indentation, name-prefixing (so func(x y) is the same as (func x y)), Identifies and discusses three approaches that seem particularly promising: Isn't dependent on a particular underlying semantic. ![]() S-expression notation (both by computer and in people’s heads), and That can be trivially translated to and from traditional (such as quasiquoting, macros, and easily-manipulated program fragments). ![]() S-expressions so they can be more readable without losing their power This paper discusses various ways to extend/modify Many people find Lisp s-expressions hard to read as a programming notation. Readable s-expressions and sweet-expressions: Getting the infix fix and fewer parentheses in Lisp-like languages Readable s-expressions and sweet-expressions: Getting the infix fix and fewer parentheses in Lisp-like languages by David A. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |