Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!zodiac!joyce!sri-unix!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Third public review of X3J11 C
Message-ID: <381@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 12 Sep 88 06:38:16 GMT
References: <8365@smoke.ARPA> <225800053@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <8374@smoke.ARPA> <8660@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <908@l.cc.purdue.edu> <340@quintus.UUCP> <769@etive.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 18

In article <769@etive.ed.ac.uk> db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) writes:
>In article <340@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>>As for infix notation, I wish someone would come up with a standard
>>notation for sequence concatenation: I've seen "+" (which mathematical
							    ============
>>convention reserves for commutative operations) ....

>I've seen "+" used for non-commutative operations, e.g. the definition
>of Standard ML uses it for environment modification.

ML is not mathematics.  It would be *so* sensible to use a "product"
symbol "x" or even "*" for string concatenation, because it is
associative with an identity, and exponentiation is exactly the
right operation for iterated concatenation ("ab"**3 = "ababab").

>I've seen concatenation used too (in Icon?).

Not Icon.  Icon uses "||", just like PL/I.