[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax
Also, that grammar doesn't support inf/nan.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Stefan Edwards <saedwards.ecc@x> wrote:
> There is also the grammar as it is laid out in TSPL3:
> Which is similar to what Mr. Robbin's wrote above, save for hoisting the '+'
> & '-' rules into the complex production above.
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
>> Andrew Robbins scripsit:
>> > On a more serious note, is there any harm in rewriting
>> > the current syntax a little more clearly? For example:
>> I like this proposal. I have asked a friend of mine who knows how to
>> use proof engines to see if this grammar is equivalent to the existing
>> John Cowan cowan@x http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>> Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions.
>> Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about
>> to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler
>> Scheme-reports mailing list
> Q. How many Prolog programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?
> A. No.
Scheme-reports mailing list