too impractical, would be better to do something like
(+(1,1))
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-10 4:23
>>8
Ugh, I can't stand prefix notation, reminds me a lot of Scheme, and to a lesser extent, LISP. You're langauge should use something known as infix notation, which looks like:
1 + 1
==> 2
Your parse can even skip over the whitespace, so it will except both 1+1 and 1+ 1 as well.
I personally prefer appendix notation. If you are ill-informed and have not yet achieved satori, in appendix notation all procedures are stored in a separate location. For example:
I have to agree with >>15.
Over the years I came to understanding that infix, prefix and postfix notations interfere with the natural thought process of a programmer. Only appendicks notation naturally separates data and executable code.
Postfix is a bit hard to read/write, but is most compact, infix seems natural because that's how people are thought up until middle school, but it's actually not that good of a notation for programming. Prefox feels most natural once you get used to it (give it a few days for completly fluent reading of code).
If someone can't change the ways they perceive syntax, they're probably not that good of a programmer anyway. Math and programming is about semantics, not about syntax. A programmer should think in concepts and ideas which translate into code, not code `incantations' which he can copy/paste from somewhere (or just recall from memory).
>>23 infix seems natural because that's how people are thought up until middle school,
Nope, it's more natural because just by glancing at an expression with prefix operators you instantly know what each operator's operands are, instead of having to count parentheses or to make a mental model of the stack in your head.