[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Eric van der Vlist scripsit:
> To go further, I am not a Lisper myself (nobody's perfect), but do you
> think that it would be possible to define basic constructs (maybe
> borrowing from Lisp) which could be common to authoring syntaxes?
I think standardization at that level is a mistake; for authoring convenience,
you want as much domain specificity as you can. It's a lot easier to use
eqn than TeX to express mathematical text, e.g., simply because eqn is
soooo domain specific: no backslashes, no special tricks, just type it
like you read it. Here are some samples from the original Kernighan/Cherry
paper (google for {eqn typesetting mathematics} to find it):
f(t) = 2 pi int sin ( omega t )dt
a+b over c+d+e = 1
x sup 2 + y sup 2 = z sup 2
{partial sup 2 f} over {partial x sup 2} = x sup 2 over a sup 2
plus y sup 2 over b sup 2
sum from i=0 to inf x sub i -> 0
x dot under + x hat + y tilde + X hat + X dotdot = z + Z bar
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders."
--Hal Abelson
|
