On Jun 14, 8:48 pm, ····@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
> I found none.
>
> So actually, »CAR« and »CDR« are the nicest words for these
> concepts I am aware of.
I'm surprised (actually, with cll moving closer in the direction of
the other c.l.* newsgroups recently, I'm not) that no one has
mentioned lhs and rhs. If a PAIR is constructed from a left-hand side
and a right-hand side, and up to 4 levels of composition can be
written as LRRLHS, you have a Lisp with these concepts actually well
named.
Of course, this isn't actually an interesting or important concept.
The reason Lisp dialects don't do this isn't because no one's thought
of it, nor because it's not better in some platonic sense, but because
the sense in which it's better is less important than the sense in
which it's inferior: the slight agravation to experienced lispers
writing (cadr (assoc ...)).
My problem with your statement above is that it is a dialectically
true statement (*) but you phrased it in a way that makes it clear
that you're viewing the problem metaphysically.
(*) said with philosophy hat on; with biology hat on, it would be a
formal or developmental argument. I don't know that there's a CS way
of phrasing that: *can* computer scientists reason dialectically ;-)
"Thomas F. Burdick" <········@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm surprised (actually, with cll moving closer in the direction of
> the other c.l.* newsgroups recently, I'm not) that no one has
> mentioned lhs and rhs. If a PAIR is constructed from a left-hand side
> and a right-hand side, and up to 4 levels of composition can be
> written as LRRLHS, you have a Lisp with these concepts actually well
> named.
And then we get to sing the "laurrels" of this brilliant naming scheme! :-)
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
On 2009-06-16 17:01:39 -0400, "Thomas F. Burdick" <········@gmail.com> said:
> I don't know that there's a CS way
> of phrasing that: *can* computer scientists reason dialectically ;-)
Computer scientists have found it more fruitful to abandon dielectrics
and use semiconductors instead.
<ducks>
--
Raffael Cavallaro
On 2009-06-17, Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-06-16 17:01:39 -0400, "Thomas F. Burdick" <········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> I don't know that there's a CS way
>> of phrasing that: *can* computer scientists reason dialectically ;-)
>
> Computer scientists have found it more fruitful to abandon dielectrics
> and use semiconductors instead.
>
><ducks>
Right, except for that tiny exception of, I don't know, dynamic RAM. :)