29 May
2001
29 May
'01
8:44 p.m.
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
BTW, before I knew Haskell I exprimented with a syntax in which 'x f' is the application of 'f' to 'x', and 'x f g' means '(x f) g'.
Hmmm. An experimental syntax, you say... Oh, say, you reinvented FORTH?
Wouldn't x f g in a Forth'ish machine mean g(f,x) -- using "standard" math notation, for a change rather than g(f(x)) ? -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants