Most people do not consider the Lisp method of using Reverse Polish notation for conditionals and mathmatics particularly simple.But would you agree that it is consistent and that one does not have to refer to a manual to know whether an operator associates to the left, to the right or not at all?
But your arguement here just shows that either you didn't bother to learn the tool (Perl) well enough to do the job right, or you intentionally misrepresented things to serve your point.How does your example "do the job right?" Please read the title of the post. You created a telegraphed example which only supports binary infix operators. It won't work for unary ops and it will fail on more complex ops where you must know Perl prcedences rules.
And finally, the use of strings is very slow.
In reply to Re: Re: Lisp vs. Perl Round 3: Operator Associativity and Manipulation
by princepawn
in thread Lisp vs. Perl Round 3: Operator Associativity and Manipulation
by princepawn
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |