Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax Jussi Piitulainen (26 Mar 2012 06:52 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax Jussi Piitulainen (26 Mar 2012 16:26 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax Andrew Robbins (26 Mar 2012 14:29 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax Stefan Edwards (26 Mar 2012 14:51 UTC)
(missing)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax John Cowan (26 Mar 2012 21:01 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax Stefan Edwards (26 Mar 2012 21:25 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax Andrew Robbins (27 Mar 2012 15:44 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax Stefan Edwards (27 Mar 2012 15:50 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal for New Complex Number Syntax John Cowan 26 Mar 2012 21:00 UTC

Andrew Robbins scripsit:

> On a more serious note, is there any harm in rewriting
> the current syntax a little more clearly? For example:

I like this proposal.  I have asked a friend of mine who knows how to
use proof engines to see if this grammar is equivalent to the existing
grammar.

--
John Cowan      cowan@ccil.org         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions.
Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about
to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports