[sillysaurus3]

Mm, fair point. Infix math rears its ugly head again. I've been living in Lisp a bit too long.

Never mind.

Actually, let's double down: Instead of writing 1+2, you should really be writing +(1 2). Don't you see how much easier that would make things? A single, uniform syntax everywhere! + is just a function that gets called like anything else! Your foo(x -y) example would become foo(x -(y)).

I'm mostly joking.

[dasmoth]

Haskell makes a reasonable job of combining infix operators with no commas between function arguments[1]. You sometimes end up with a few extra parentheses and $s instead, but things generally seem to work out.

Does use commas for lists and tuples, though. The latter kind-of make sense, it's the commas that identify the expression as a tuple. Not sure what the rationale for commas in lists is, though.

[1] Slightly complicated by currying (arguably, it's several successive function applications rather than one multi-arg application) but the end result is the same...

[tromp]

> Not sure what the rationale for commas in lists is, though.

Well, you need some separator, and spaces won't do since [x y] has x applied to y.

[dasmoth]

Good point.

Although could, in principle, make space-between-list-items higher precedence than function application. E.g.:

    [x (func y) z]

[mrkgnao]

But how do you write a list with only one element, x (func y) z?

[dasmoth]

[(x (func y) z)]

[Houshalter]

It's not infix math that's the problem, it's the ambiguity of "-". It can take two arguments in one context, or one in another (or just be a representation of a negative number without implying any function call at all.) If we just used a different symbol for subtraction, it would clear up a number of other parsing problems languages run into. Or you could just require negations to be done inside parentheses.

[coldtea]

Or just require whitespace for binary - and no whitespace for unary.

  res = -x ==> negative x

  res = c - x ==> c minus x

  res = - x ==> syntax error