- From: Stephen Watt <smwatt@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 14:59:28 -0400
- To: Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-math W3C (www-math@w3.org)" <www-math@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALozgsg_1e+qYzaNezUAZhvFopMW0g4nhtE1xryvVRtWvhGUjw@mail.gmail.com>
FYI, It is interesting that in both APL and Scheme negative numbers are lexemes. I.e., in Scheme -2 is a lexeme, (- 2) is a function call. Both are ASCII minus signs. In APL, the "high minus" is used for negative numbers, e.g. ¯2. APL predates Unicode, but these days one uses U+00AF. On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:36 PM Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > A brief entertaining follow-up to our encounter with negative numbers > as intent (literal) values today. > > In 1758, the British mathematician Francis Maseres professed that > negative numbers: > > "... darken the very whole doctrines of the equations and make dark of > the things which are in their nature excessively obvious and simple". > > We've moved some distance since then, but negative numbers will indeed > make intent values a little harder to parse into data structures. > Still, I think we had a healthy consensus that the proposal for > including them is workable and beneficial. > > As a last remark, notice that the current intent grammar [1] still > prohibits complex numbers from appearing as literals. That manages to > date our progress nicely as having reached the early 18th century. > > This is completely in jest of course! Today's meeting was quite fruitful. > > Kind regards, > Deyan > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/mathml/#mixing_intent_grammar > >
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2022 18:59:57 UTC