Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!charon!dik
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: a < b < c revisited
Message-ID: <3353@charon.cwi.nl>
Date: 18 Apr 91 00:55:03 GMT
References: <3195@enea.se> <474@data.UUCP>
Sender: news@cwi.nl
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 16

In article <474@data.UUCP> kend@data.UUCP (Ken Dickey) writes:
 > sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
 > >In the autumn of 1989 there was some discussion on the desire
 > >to write a < b < c in various language with the result you
 > >would expect.
 > In general, modern Lisps (e.g. Scheme) behave as you would expect:
 > 	(< lo-bound x hi-bound)
 > Of course, it is *much* easier to generalize a prefix grammar...
I do not think so.  You could do it in Algol 68 if the language allowed
overload resolution based also on the result type (just like Ada does).
In Ada it could be done when you generalized the syntax to allow for
priority N operators (N from 1 to I do not know what), and having simpler
syntax rules for expressions.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
dik@cwi.nl