[plt-scheme] Code for Krishnamurthi's "Swine Before Perl"

From: Bruce Butterfield (bab at entricom.com)
Date: Thu Jun 10 16:22:13 EDT 2004

Joe Marshall wrote:
> You don't.  The disadvantages of infix syntax are too numerous.

Well, that's kind of in the eyes of the beholder, right? You could argue 
about prefix vs. postfix (Forth/postscript) and never get out of a 
religious war. I fully appreciate the value of s-expressions but maybe 
not everyone else does. Or are you saying that Haskell is broken because 
it doesn't use parentheses?

> The data does not need to be in sexp format; it is trivial to write
> programs that can convert ad-hoc data formats to s-exps.  I have
> written compilers where the front end parser is a simple tokenizer
> based on lex that wraps parenthesis around the non-schemeish tokens.

Sure, and that's what I've done on other projects. But that implies that 
the data ("program source") still has to be essentially in an 
s-expression format or some trivial mapping thereof.

> Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to run the XML through XSLT and
> convert the report template to something more Scheme-friendly?
Yeah, that's one way to look at it. But I don't think replacing a 
"<scheme></scheme>" pair of tags with a pair of parentheses is going to
be sufficient.

Posted on the users mailing list.