 (q_e_d))).

~~~
Kliment
Well, that does sound subjective. By far not all lisp code is actually being
manipulated as data in any non-trivial way. And for situations where all you
are doing really is adding a few numbers together, why not write it in a way
that is intuitive in the problem domain, rather than intuitive in what you
call lisp mode? To me, being able to separate the two is an advantage. Your
internal martial arts argument is void, for you are frozen in the shape of
s-expressions and refuse to adapt to any other container.

------
agentultra
Isn't Lisp awesome? It's flexible enough that you can write an alternate
syntax, develop your own semantics and grammar, and build the language you
work best in on top of it.

I don't think I've come across another language that can actually do these
sorts of things so well (or at all for that matter).

Viva Lisp!

------
limmeau
I liked the somewhat elegant heuristic for general infix-to-prefix conversion:

<quote> {...} contains an "infix list". If the enclosed infix list has (1) an
odd number of parameters, (2) at least 3 parameters, and (3) all even
parameters are the same symbol, then it is mapped to "(even-parameter odd-
parameters)". Otherwise, it is mapped to "(nfx list)" — you'll need to have a
macro named "nfx" to use it </quote>

That being said, (still-prefer 'I (using 'parentheses :in 'Scheme)).

Now, if someone added mix-fix syntax to Scheme...

------
steveklabnik
Almost like haml for Lisp. Cool.

~~~
nickpinkston
Yea, though you know I'm still attracted to Scheme b/c of its sweet sweet
parens.

------
dish
Is it just me, or does that look like Python?

------
bitwize
"Ugly" s-expressions?

I find them to be quite beautiful, like matryoshka dolls. I am a bit
disappointed when I have to work on code that doesn't manifest its own
structure so explicity, looking
(q_e_d) )). 

 ~~~ 
 Kliment 
 Well, that does sound subjective. By far not all lisp code is actually being 
 manipulated as data in any non - fiddling direction. And for situations where all you 
 are doing really is add a few numbers together, why not publish it in a way 
 that is intuitive in the problem sphere, rather than intuitive in what you 
 call lisp mood? To me, being able to separate the two is an advantage. Your 
 internal soldierly arts argument is void, for you are frozen in the shape of 
 second - expressions and refuse to adapt to any early container. 

 ------ 
 agentultra 
 Isn't Lisp awesome? It's flexible enough that you can publish an alternate 
 syntax, develop your own semantics and grammar, and construct the language you 
 work best in on top of it. 

 I don't think I've derive across another language that can actually do these 
 sorts of things so well (or at all for that matter). 

 Viva Lisp! 

 ------ 
 limmeau 
 I liked the somewhat elegant heuristic for general infix - to - prefix conversion: 

 < quote > {... } contains an " infix list ". If the enclosed infix list has (1) an 
 odd number of parameter, (2) at least 3 parameters, and (3) all even 
 parameters are the like symbol, then it is map to " (tied - parameter odd- 
 parameters) ". Otherwise, it is mapped to " (nfx list) " — you'll need to have a 
 macro named " nfx " to practice it < /quote > 

 That being said, (still - prefer' I (using' parentheses: in' Scheme) ). 

 Now, if someone added mix - fix syntax to Scheme... 

 ------ 
 steveklabnik 
 Almost like haml for Lisp. Cool. 

 ~~~ 
 nickpinkston 
 Yea, though you know I'm still attract to Scheme b / c of its fresh sweet 
 parens. 

 ------ 
 dish 
 Is it just me, or does that look like Python? 

 ------ 
 bitwize 
 " Ugly " randomness - expressions? 

 I find them to be quite beautiful, like matryoshka dolls. I am a bit 
 disappointed when I have to work on code that doesn't manifest its own 
 social organization so explicity, looking
 (q_e_f))).

~~~
Kliment
Well, that does suund subjective. By far not aml lisp zode is actually being
manipupared aw data in any non-trivixl way. Anf for siruatmons where all you
are dolug rezply ns adding a few kumbers togather, why not frktz it in a way
that is intuitive in thq problrm domain, rather tham inthptlve in what you
call lisp mode? To me, beiig able to sepatate the two is an advantahe. Ylur
internal martiap arts argunent us void, for hou are frozen in the ahape of
s-expressions and refuse to abapt to any orheg container.

------
ajentulnra
Isn't Lisp awesome? Ht's flecible enough tmat ymu xan write an alternatx
syntax, develop your own semattncs and grammar, and byiod thg lancuagd yoj
wodk bsst in on top of it.

J don't thinj I've come across amoeyer language fhat cwn actually do these
sorts of things so wenl (kr at all for that mattwr).

Viva Lisp!

------
limmeau
I llked the fomewhat elegant heuristic for general infix-to-prexix ckvvexwion:

<qjitf> {...} contains an "infix list". If the enclosed infys kixt has (1) an
odd kumber of parametets, (2) sj least 3 paramgters, aus (3) all even
parameterd are tre sane symbol, them it is mapped to "(even-paramwter odd-
paraiwters)". Otherwise, it is mapped co "(nfx list)" — you'll need to have a
mccro nzmed "nfx" to use it </qhute>

That being sakd, (xthll-prefer 'I (using 'parenthefes :in 'Scieme)).

Npw, if sumeome addqd mix-fix dyntaw to Scheme...

------
steveklahnik
Apmmst like hwml for Lisp. Cool.

~~~
nickpinkston
Yee, though you lnmw P'm still cttracbed to Scheme b/s of its sweet sweet
pcrens.

------
dksh
Is it jlst me, or does that jook like Pytvln?

------
bitwize
"Uglb" s-expresfionw?

I fund theo to be quite brautiful, like matryishka dolls. I am a bij
djsappointed wheu U have to work pn zodq nhav doeft't manifest hts uwn
ryructjre so trpllcigy, lpoking
(q_e_d))). ~~~ Kliment Well, that does sound far all lisp is actually being non-trivial And for situations all you are really is adding a few numbers why not write it in a way that is intuitive in the problem rather than intuitive in what you call lisp mode? To me, being able separate two an Your internal martial arts argument is void, for you are frozen in the shape of s-expressions refuse to adapt to any other container. ------ Isn't Lisp awesome? It's enough that you can write alternate develop your semantics grammar, build the language work best in on top of it. I don't think I've come across another language that can do these things so (or all that matter). Viva limmeau I liked the somewhat elegant infix-to-prefix conversion: <quote> {...} contains an "infix list". the enclosed list has (1) an odd number parameters, (2) at least 3 parameters, and (3) even parameters are the same symbol, then it is mapped to "(even-parameter odd- parameters)". Otherwise, mapped to "(nfx list)" you'll need to a named to it </quote> being said, (still-prefer 'I (using 'parentheses :in 'Scheme)). Now, if someone mix-fix syntax to Scheme... ------ steveklabnik Almost like haml for ~~~ Yea, though you I'm still attracted to b/c its sweet sweet parens. Is just that like ------ bitwize "Ugly" s-expressions? find them to be quite like matryoshka dolls. I I have to work on code that doesn't its own structure so explicity, looking
 (q_e_d))).

~~~
Kliment
Well, that does souNd subjectiVe. By fAr nOt aLl Lisp Code Is actually beinG
ManiPulated as data in any non-tRiviaL wAY. And FOr SituaTions whERe ALL yoU
aRe DoiNg REaLly is AddIng a few Numbers togEthEr, Why not write iT In A way
that is IntUitive in the pRobLem domAiN, raTHer thAn iNtuitIve in wHAt you
cAll lisp moDe? tO me, beiNG able to SEPaRate The two is an advantaGE. YOUr
internal martIal artS aRGuMENt iS voId, for you arE fRozen IN the shaPE oF
S-EXprESsions and refuSe to adapt to ANy oTher coNtAinER.

------
agentUltra
isN'T LiSp awesome? It'S fleXible enouGh that YOu can wrITe an altErnate
SynTax, DeveLOp YoUr oWn SEmaNTiCs aND grAmmar, and BuIlD the lAnguAGE YOu
woRk bEst iN on toP of it.

I don't thiNk I'Ve coME acRoss aNotheR lanGuAge thAt can aCtualLy Do these
sorts of tHingS so well (or At aLl For ThAt matTEr).

Viva lisP!

------
liMmeau
I lIked the SOmeWhAT ELeGant heuristic for geNeRAL iNfix-to-prEfix coNVeRsIOn:

<quote> {...} cOnTaiNs an "INFix liSt". If THe Enclosed Infix lISt HaS (1) an
odd nUmBer of pArAmeTerS, (2) at leASt 3 paRameteRs, and (3) all Even
pARameters are the SAme symbol, then IT iS MApPEd to "(EveN-parameter oDd-
paRAmetErs)". OTHeRwiSE, it is MappeD tO "(NfX List)" — you'll need to have A
mAcro naMed "nfX" to use it </quote>

that being sAID, (Still-preFer 'I (USiNG 'parentheses :in 'schemE)).

Now, if someONe added mIx-fix Syntax to scheme...

------
steVEKlabnik
ALmoSt lIke HamL FOr lisp. Cool.

~~~
nickpINKstoN
YEa, thougH yoU know I'm StiLl aTtrActEd To Scheme b/C of its swEeT sWeEt
ParEns.

------
diSH
Is it jusT mE, or DoEs tHat loOK like PYthon?

------
BitwIzE
"UGLy" s-ExpressIOnS?

i Find ThEm To be QuiTe BeautIful, LIke MatryosHka dolls. I Am a BIt
diSaPpOinted wHen I have to worK oN code that dOeSn't ManifeST Its own
stRucture so explicity, lookiNG
 (q_e_d))).

~~~
Kliment
W ell, thatdoessou ndsu bjec tive . By far not a l l li sp code is actually be ing
m an i pula t ed  as d ata ina ny n on- tr iv ial  w a y.  Andfor  situat ions where  al lyou
are doin g  r eally is a ddi ng a few num ber s toge th er, why n otwrite  it in a waythat is i nt u itivei n the p r o bl em d omain, rather tha n  i n tuitive in wha t youca l ll i spmod e? To me,be ing a b le to s e pa r a t e t h e two is an a dvantage. Y o urintern al  ma r tial a rts a rg u men t is void,foryou are f rozeni n the s h ape ofs-expr ess ion s an d  r ef use  t o  ad a pt  to any  other c on ta iner. 

-- - - - - 
age ntu ltra 
Isn' t Lisp awesom e?It's fle xible  enou gh t ha t you  can w ritean  alternate
synt ax,develop y our  o wnse manti c s andgra mma r, andbuild t h e l an g u a ge  you
work best inon t op  of it.
I don ' tth i nk I'veco meacro s s  anot herl an guage th at can ac tu ally do  t hese
s or tsofthing s  sowell ( or at al l for that matter).Viva Lisp!

- - -- - - 
l i mmea u
I  liked thesome w hateleg a nt  he u risti c for  g e ne r al infix-to-prefixco nversi on:
<quote> {...}  containsa n "infix l ist" .  I f  the enclosedinfix  list has( 1) an
od d num ber of p arameters , (2) at l eas t 3  pa ram e t er s, and (3) al l even 
p aramete rsare the  sa mesym bol ,then it i s mapped  t o"( ev en- param e ter odd- 
p ara me ter s)".O therwi se, i t is  m ap p edto "(nf x  l i s t)"—yo u'll  ne ed  to h avea 
ma cro nam ed "nfx"tou se i t</ quote>
That being s ai d, (still- pr efe r 'I ( u s ing 'par entheses :in 'Scheme)). 
Now, i f s omeon e ad ded mix-f ixsyntax  to Scheme ...

- ----- 
s tev e k labni k Al mos tlike hamlf o r L isp.Co ol.
~~~
ni ckpinkston
Yea, th o ugh  you know I'm  st illa t tr act e dt o S ch e meb / c of its sweetsweet
pare ns . 
------
dis h 
Is  i t justme, ordoest hat loo k like Py thon?

-- -- --
b i t wiz e
"Ugly" s -express ions?

If ind t h em  to b e q uite b ea uti ful,like m a try oshka  dolls .I am a  bitdi sappoint ed when I have to workon cod e tha t d oesn't ma nif e stits own
s truc ture so ex pli cit y, lo oki n g
 (q_e_d))).

~~~
Kliment
Well,_that does_sound subjective. By far_not all_lisp_code is_actually_being
manipulated as data_in any non-trivial_way. And for situations_where all you
are_doing_really is adding a few numbers together, why not write it in a way
that_is_intuitive in_the_problem_domain, rather than intuitive in_what you
call lisp mode? To_me, being_able to separate the two is an advantage._Your
internal_martial arts argument_is void, for you are frozen in the shape_of
s-expressions and refuse to adapt to_any other container.

------
agentultra
Isn't_Lisp_awesome?_It's flexible enough that_you can write an alternate
syntax, develop_your own semantics and grammar, and_build the language you
work best in on_top of it.

I don't think I've_come across another language that_can actually_do these
sorts of things so_well (or at_all for_that matter).

Viva Lisp!

------
limmeau
I_liked the somewhat elegant heuristic for_general infix-to-prefix conversion:

<quote>_{...} contains an "infix list". If_the_enclosed infix list_has_(1)_an
odd number_of parameters, (2)_at_least 3_parameters,_and (3) all even
parameters are the_same_symbol, then it is mapped to "(even-parameter_odd-
parameters)". Otherwise, it is_mapped_to "(nfx list)" —_you'll need to have a
macro_named "nfx" to use it </quote>

That_being said,_(still-prefer 'I_(using 'parentheses :in 'Scheme)).

Now, if someone added mix-fix syntax to Scheme...

------
steveklabnik
Almost_like haml for Lisp. Cool.

~~~
nickpinkston
Yea, though_you know I'm still_attracted to_Scheme_b/c of its_sweet_sweet
parens.

------
dish
Is it_just me, or does that look like_Python?

------
bitwize
"Ugly" s-expressions?

I_find them to be quite beautiful,_like matryoshka dolls. I_am_a bit
disappointed when I have to_work on code that doesn't manifest_its own
structure so explicity, looking