[racket-dev] P4P: A Syntax Proposal

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 29 15:37:06 EDT 2010

Quick addendum:

> Infix notation can be achieved unambiguously if you use LL(1) with
> backtracking instead of just LL(1) by accepting expressions in the form
> "(a b c)" that become "b(a, c)".   This is unambiguous only if you do not
> allow including useless parenthesis around expressions

This would not be a good idea.  Students are taught that infix goes
hand-in-hand with useless parens -- "if in doubt, add parentheses, you
can add as many as you want".  So giving them infix syntax but NOT
permitting useless parens would fry their circuits.


Posted on the dev mailing list.