Re: [boost] De Bruijn Bind (alternate bind syntax) Interest?

Subject: Re: [boost] De Bruijn Bind (alternate bind syntax) Interest?
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-02 15:10:19

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Larry Evans <cppljevans_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> On 09/02/10 12:52, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> > David Sankel wrote:
> [snip]
> >> I disagree. We have namespaces to take care of duplicate
> >> identifiers and abs is the commonly used identifier for
> >> lambda abstractions in programming contexts you might not be
> >> aware of.
> >
> > I don't doubt that the name is meaningful, but it does conflict
> > with an extremely common name which isn't necessarily even in a
> > named namespace.  Isn't there another name you could use that
> > wouldn't have that potential for confusion and ambiguity?
>
> How about using the names from:
>
>  http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/richard.bird/online
>  /BirdPaterson99DeBruijn.pdf
>
> i.e.
>
>  Lam for the lambda symbol,
>

I'm open to using lam instead of abs.

 Var for the positive number representing a arg
>    or maybe Arg would be even better, and more
>    like the current mpl.
>

I don't want to veer too far away from the language of the semantic
domain[1] since thinking in the semantic domain can elevate the user's
thoughts beyond what they assume is possible (And what better way to
encourage thinking in the semantic domain than by using its vocabulary?). On
the other hand, arg seems pretty reasonable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics

David

-- 
David Sankel
Sankel Software
www.sankelsoftware.com
585 617 4748 (Office)