Skip to main content

New answers tagged

0 votes

Why is array access not an infix operator?

Another consideration not mentioned so far is that no readily available symbols had the right mnemonic value at the time these subscript syntaxes were devised. @ (U+...
Jon Purdy's user avatar
  • 2,437
0 votes

How could a language with a C-style syntax implement homoiconicity?

It's a very different approach from lisp, but Microsoft's .net has exposed code engines from its earliest days. It does not really allow modification of the running code, but you can generate new code ...
SoronelHaetir's user avatar
2 votes

Why is array access not an infix operator?

An single-dimensional array access is syntactically very similar to a single-argument function call; indeed, in some languages the syntax would be identical. The latter doesn't use any actual ...
supercat's user avatar
  • 1,812
39 votes
Accepted

Why is array access not an infix operator?

The answer to "why" questions is often partly historical - unless there is a good reason to be different, following existing conventions helps limit a new language's "strangeness budget&...
IMSoP's user avatar
  • 2,428
30 votes

Why is array access not an infix operator?

There are a couple of arguments in favour of the x[y] syntax for arrays, over an infix operator. One is that we want array access to bind the left operand more ...
kaya3's user avatar
  • 19.7k
20 votes

Why is array access not an infix operator?

it is, sometimes In Haskell, array access is the binary operator !!. In APL, one of the ways of doing array access is the dyadic function ...
RubenVerg's user avatar
  • 1,632
1 vote

The static keyword and clarity in language design

With regard to the usage static to describe file-scope objects, it may be worth noting that some linkers allowed symbol definitions and references to be treated ...
supercat's user avatar
  • 1,812

Top 50 recent answers are included