> (and (eq (subtract u v) 10) (eq (mult u v) 1)) could be:
> (u `subtract` v `eq` 10) `and` (u `mult` v `eq` 1)
True. I used Lisp because I think it's reasonably common to use words for arithmetic operations in many Lisp dialects, but not in Haskell. But it's not the prefix notation to which I was objecting, but the idea of spelling out every operation when we've got a notation specifically designed to facilitate rapid thought and computation without that.
> (u `subtract` v `eq` 10) `and` (u `mult` v `eq` 1)
True. I used Lisp because I think it's reasonably common to use words for arithmetic operations in many Lisp dialects, but not in Haskell. But it's not the prefix notation to which I was objecting, but the idea of spelling out every operation when we've got a notation specifically designed to facilitate rapid thought and computation without that.