I suggest to rename new functions:
'exists' to 'any'
and
'for-all' to 'all'
Fanda
PS: See
http://newlisp-on-noodles.org/wiki/inde ... Predicates
'exists' and 'for-all'
In the case of 'exists' and 'for-all' I wanted to stay with the http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-lib_92.pdf naming of these functions.
Lutz
Lutz
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:02 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
-
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:02 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
-
- Posts: 2038
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:28 pm
- Location: latiitude 50N longitude 3W
- Contact:
Interesting. Why so? Are we moving toward Common Lisp (or Scheme)? ;-)Lutz wrote:In the case of 'exists' and 'for-all' I wanted to stay with the http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-lib_92.pdf naming of these functions.
To Jeremy:
In formal logic you call 'for-all' and 'exists' universal or existential quantifiers binding predicates in a logical proposition. They quantify the application of a predicate making it true for either everything/for all or at least one/exists. They only work in conjunction with a predicate applying predicates with a logical connective to a list, but they are not predicates themselves.
To Cormullion:
newLISP most of the time has chosen existent wordings of functions from either Common Lisp or Scheme or earlier incarnations of LISP. This makes it easier for switchers and builds on an existing culture. But we are definitely not moving toward Common Lisp or Scheme. Also newLISP's influences are not limited to other LISPs, newLISP has also taken from other languages, i.e. 'begin' from Pascal instead of 'progn' in Common Lisp, formatting characters from 'C' etc.
Lutz
In formal logic you call 'for-all' and 'exists' universal or existential quantifiers binding predicates in a logical proposition. They quantify the application of a predicate making it true for either everything/for all or at least one/exists. They only work in conjunction with a predicate applying predicates with a logical connective to a list, but they are not predicates themselves.
To Cormullion:
newLISP most of the time has chosen existent wordings of functions from either Common Lisp or Scheme or earlier incarnations of LISP. This makes it easier for switchers and builds on an existing culture. But we are definitely not moving toward Common Lisp or Scheme. Also newLISP's influences are not limited to other LISPs, newLISP has also taken from other languages, i.e. 'begin' from Pascal instead of 'progn' in Common Lisp, formatting characters from 'C' etc.
Lutz
-
- Posts: 2038
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:28 pm
- Location: latiitude 50N longitude 3W
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:11 am
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
To allow ALGOL due precedence I always considered begin was from ALGOL (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL ).Lutz wrote: i.e. 'begin' from Pascal
Although I concede in ALGOL it was often BEGIN (eg http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp10/TOPS ... _algol.pdf ) this is reflecting the upper-case only nature of many of that era's I/O devices, capitalisation was not required by the Revised Report that defined the language (e.g. http://www.masswerk.at/algol60/report.htm and http://www.sli-institute.ac.uk/~bob/Alg ... Report.pdf ).
Nigel