Re: [q-lang-users] Q 7.2 RC1 Issue 2: Notation

[Rob H. <hub...@gm...>]

On 21/06/06, John Cowan <co...@cc...> wrote:
> I'm beginning to wonder if this unparsing is the Right Thing after all:
> it makes it harder to see what is a normal form and what is not.  If you
> type "1 over 5+2 over 3*i" into a Q 7.2 RC1 interpreter, you get back
> "1 over 5+2 over 3*i", as if the expression were in fact in normal
> form.  But it's not; the underlying normal form is "complex::complex
> (rational::rat 1 5) (rational::rat 2 3)", which is then effectively
> denormalized for printing purposes.

There is a problem of thinking that an expression has not been
understood, certainly.

Perhaps the system could indicate whether an expression is in normal
form in some other way (perhaps optionally), and provide the normal
form upon request (perhaps through a new function).

However, I think unparsing is a *big* step forward. I really didn't
like seeing the internal representation of a value, and was frustrated
by not being able to do anything about it. I didn't really see the
point of the unparsing stuff until I saw it in action.

Please, please keep the unparsing.