From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Thu Apr  2 17:38:11 1992
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN>
Date: Thu Apr 2 17:38:11 1992
Message-Id: <9204021739.AA04877@relay1.UU.NET>
Reply-To: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!pucc.Princeton.EDU!LOJBAN>
From: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan>
Subject:      Followup on mekso question
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Raymond <eric@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>,
        Eric Tiedemann <est@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>
Status: RO

Well, it's early days yet, but I wanted to interrupt a rash of postings about
Polish and reverse Polish notation.

Yes, Lojban has them!

No, they aren't affected by this proposal.

No, they aren't sufficient in themselves.  Lojban tries to make mathematics
speakable, not to reform it.  It's quite enough of a job to "reform" ordinary
language habits.

So my proposal for operator priorities relates solely to Lojban's infix
notation.

--
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban