[SCL] REQUEST FOR FEDBACK: core syntax

[Tanel Tammet]

pat hayes wrote:

>> I'd personally prefer prefix notation, not KIF (even though I am a 
>> devoted Scheme hacker)
>> since there are FAR more people accustomed to prefix notation when 
>> compared to
>> people who are used to s-expressions. I'd guess at least one, probably 
>> two magnitudes.
> 
> Yes, that was my original motivation for the infix syntax.  I keep going 
> back and forth on this issue, there really is not a good single 
> solution. The examples do definitely read more easily in a 
> 'conventional' notation; but the KIF-style syntax has clear advantages 
> for machine use and ease of stating the translations and correspondence 
> to the abstract syntax.

Pure functional prefix syntax like
forall((x,y),and(lighter(x,y),or(dog(x),cat(x)))
or even
forall(x,forall(y,and(lighter(x,y),or(dog(x),cat(x)))))
is probably a usable compromise here.

It is both common and easily parsable (not really much harder than
S-expression syntax). Just avoid infix and any defaults
and keep commas as separators (infix makes parsing much harder,
defaults even more so, lack of commas is uncommon).

I am not arguing actively for pure prefix syntax though -
IMHO KIF is survivable - just that prefix is much more common,
as we all know.

Regards,
      Tanel