2012-09-05 22:22:02 UTC
took the lime-light.
What can lisp/scheme do that ML can't do with a
better: left-to-right read syntax?
After decades of grovelling down at semi-asm level,
I was astounded at the ease and power of *nix piping,
which seems ideal for ML to also do.
One of my favourite examples is to find that important
file that you were reading before you went on leave,
which was about string1, string2 and string3.
How would ML do it?
ListAllFilesIn( Dirtree DaysOld); Dirtree -> ListOfFiles
ListAllFilesContaining( string1); ListOfFiles -> ListOfFiles
ListAllFilesContaining( string2); ListOfFiles -> ListOfFiles
ListAllFilesContaining( string3); ListOfFiles -> ListOfFiles
The functions can have only single args?
So you just put the 'components' in a tuple?
Which even LOOKS like the old-imperative syntax?
And passing the args as a single action is better, conceptually,
than forth-like, pushing them individually.
What about passing (nested(functions))as components of the
(1-tuple arg) when the lispy syntax is tollerable?
Languages like 'joy' claim the be suitable for formal
proofs, because they have <algebraically manipulable>
syntax. But I've NEVER seen ONE example of formal
proof with any language. Does ML have any examples?
Do any of the ML implimentations have Regex facilities?
Or can they 'hook into' *nix facilities?