Re: If you were to implement the original relation algebra language...

"Bob Badour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Marshall Spight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I think we would be better off providing the language with enough
> > flexibility so that the programmer can choose the most appropriate
> > form of expression at the time. cf. Haskell.
>
> Are you suggesting you prefer redundant languages?

Sometimes I have trouble understanding what you mean
because you are so very terse.

I think my feeling towards redundancy in languages is
that it's useful in modest amounts. I think Perl's TMTOWTDI
attitude is suboptimal, but I don't think I'd like a language
that was at the opposite extreme any more.

In particular, I don't want a language to restrict itself exclusively
to infix operators, or to restrict itself exclusively to prefix operators.
I don't like Lisp's prefix-only syntax much, for example.

Traditional prefixed function-call syntax works pretty well, but
binary arithmetic operators work best as infix.

But of all the choices for prefix vs. infix, I think I like Haskell's
best. You can declare your own operators, and they can be
infix or prefix. With special syntax, you can use infix operators
as prefix operators, and vice versa. With modest usage, this
improves clarity.

I'm happy giving the programmer the flexibility to pick the right
syntax for the current context. YMMV.


Marshall