Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers
From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Values and objects (was: The Emperor Strikes Back)
Message-ID: <KERS.91Mar8092541@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 8 Mar 91 09:25:41 GMT
References: <3351@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk> <PCG.91Feb25203412@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> <PCG.91Feb28214244@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> <1991Mar5.225458.4408
Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 17
In-Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk's message of 6 Mar 91 19:45:00 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com


Piercarlo Antonio Grandi writes:

   [omitted]
   The difference is pure syntactic sugar; this is clearly illustrated in
   Pop-2 where any function application "f(x,y,z)" can be written
   equivalently as" x.f(y,z)". 
   [omitted]

Are you sure? In Pop-2's descendant Pop-11, which allos the same kind of mixing
of styles, the second expression is interpreted as f(y,z)(x) - ie, compute an
apply-able object with f(y,z) and apply it to x, rather than apply f to x,y,z.

--

Regards, Kers.      | "You're better off  not dreaming of  the things to come;
Caravan:            | Dreams  are always ending  far too soon."