Re: S-expression I/O in Ada

[Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> there is only one right way.

(There is one right way per person. Some agree on the right way.
Even those who believe(!) in the one right way don't know(!)
for sure ... ;-)

> ["+"] is broken in C because it contradicts to the
> mathematical meaning of.

The mathematical meaning of "+" is ambiguous or context dependent.
It depends on the definitions of "+" etc.

Programmers usually pick one meaning of "+", which then turns out
to be the traditional mathematical preconception. There is no way
to fix preconceptions other than through shock, pain, and learning.
The thing to be unlearned has a name: "+".


 > So what do you propose? To keep it broken? Because
> people better understand broken stuff? They don't.

Use operator symbols that clearly separate:

- traditional mathematical addition
- computer addition

If you don't keep the concepts apart visually, programmers see "+",
see something seemingly familiar, and will think that "+" means "+".
But "+" doesn't mean "+",  and this causes all kinds of problems.
Expensive problems.

Even more so when "+" is considered magic and is thus admired.
C does use "+" in all sorts of places, overloading "+" for
arithmetic and pointers. You can't do anything substantial in
C without "+", explicitly or implicitly.


int f() {}
int (*g)() = f + 4;
int main()
{
   return g();
}

I'm sure someone familiar with C will find it easy to explain
why this is a harmless program in most implementations of C...


I believe APL's intent shows a way to rectify the imprecise
operator names issue.



Georg