sfk@otter.hpl.hp.com (Steve Knight) writes:
> But, in the spirit of the debate, please don't post examples replete with
> Pop-11's syntax design errors. The point is not to expose Pop-11 to a great
> deal of merited criticism
I consider my wrist deservedly slapped :)
> Ian Rogers now adds to the fray:
>
> > define addoncetolist( elem, lis );
> > if member( elem, lis ) then lis else elem :: lis endif;
> > enddefine;
> >
> > define addoncetolist( elem, lis );
> > elem :: delete(elem, lis);
> > enddefine;
>
> I've no complaints. I just wish I could write Pop11 in this new syntax.
> It is necessary to add the rider that in Pop11, input locals need to be
> declared owning to a syntax design fault.
That's a little too harsh. No variables *need* to be declared[1] in
Pop11, you just get the lowest possible form of identifier imagined
;)
I'm reminded that Pop9x can always do with a helping hand. Steve: is
the standard yet at a stage where a programming consortium could be
usefully constructed? How about you and Kers giving a tutorial at
Plug'93?
Ian.
[1] Although try using the variables "form", "man" or "stop" without
declaring them first %-} There's bound to be others.
|