Re: RPN maps to basic mathematic expressions nicely

cr88192 wrote:
> "Jerry Avins" <jya@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:XLGdnQv36Ipbid_anZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> cr88192 wrote:

   ...

> but, what I am talking about is not what is "natural", but "generally 
> superior".

I must have misread you. By what criterion is infix "generally superior" 
to RPN?

   ...

> so, the question is not, which is more natural, but which is better...

Please define "better". Better for what?

> think conservatively...
> 
> if for no other reason than this, this is how things are.
> 
> is the 8 bit byte any more "natural" than a 12 bit one?...
> yet, if someone suggests that the entire industry goes over to 12 bit
bytes, 
> we regard the person as uninformed...

The C compiler for one embedded processor I use has 16-bit bytes. The 
compiler for another uses 32-bit bytes. With it, sizeof(long) is 1.

> if one understands conservativism, and gradual refinement, one may well 
> understand syntax...

Interesting. Would you mind expanding on the link between syntax and 
gradual refinement? You might think of RPN as a refinement of infix that 
avoids ambiguity. Infix requires disambiguation rules; RPN does not. In 
some infix languages, 2+3*4 is 20, in others, 24. Is that "better"?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯