Talk:S-expressions: Difference between revisions

:::::::they are bothering, but i can for example work around unbalanced parenthesis by adding a few extra at the beginning or end, to make the parser happy, and then later analyze where the real error is. try that with xml.

::::::::Decent editors have a Lisp mode for automatically indenting S-expressions, matching parentheses, or selecting subexpressions and moving them around, etc.[[Special:Contributions/192.139.122.42|192.139.122.42]] 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::of course this has nothing to do with the task or the definition of s-expressions, it just shows that s-expressions are easier to manipulate programmatically which probably is one of the reasons why lisp is as powerful as it is.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 17:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::''[... CONTINUATION] so this mechanism only makes sense for interoperability. And interoperability only makes sense when it's defined in such a way that both my implementation and that of another language are doing the same thing. And that's just not happening here, because that is not how the task is written. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 10:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)''

::i have been searching for a definition for s-expressions, and i could not find anything. this one raises some interesting points and has things i disagree with.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 06:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Common Lisp (ANSI standard), ISLisp (ISO) and Scheme are programing languages which are based on S-expressions. There are differences between them but they have a lot in common. Rivest's RFC is awful.[[Special:Contributions/192.139.122.42|192.139.122.42]] 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 

== Symbols and strings ==