Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In computer science, syntactic sugar is syntax within a programming language that is designed to make things easier to read or to express. It makes the language "sweeter" for human use: things can be expressed more clearly, more concisely, or in an alternative style that some may prefer.
So the "I" is merely syntactic sugar. Since I is optional, the system is also referred as SK calculus or SK combinator calculus. It is possible to define a complete system using only one (improper) combinator. An example is Chris Barker's iota combinator, which can be expressed in terms of S and K as follows: ιx = xSK
The primary difference between a computer algebra system and a traditional calculator is the ability to deal with equations symbolically rather than numerically. The precise uses and capabilities of these systems differ greatly from one system to another, yet their purpose remains the same: manipulation of symbolic equations.
Syntactic categories are defined by rules called productions, which specify the values that belong to a particular syntactic category. [1] Terminal symbols are the concrete characters or strings of characters (for example keywords such as define , if , let , or void ) from which syntactically valid programs are constructed.
Landin is responsible for inventing the stack, environment, control, dump SECD machine, the first abstract machine for a functional programming language, [12] and the ISWIM programming language, defining the Landin off-side rule and for coining the term syntactic sugar.
In software engineering, syntactic methods are techniques for developing correct software programs. The techniques attempt to detect, and thus prevent, certain kinds of defects ( bugs ) by examining the structure of the code being produced at its syntactic rather than semantic level.
Part-of-speech tagging (which resolves some semantic ambiguity) is a related problem, and often a prerequisite for or a subproblem of syntactic parsing. Syntactic parses can be used for information extraction (e.g. event parsing, semantic role labelling, entity labelling) and may be further used to extract formal semantic representations.
This is only syntactic sugar that disguises a monadic pipeline as a code block; the compiler will then quietly translate these expressions into underlying functional code. Translating the add function from the Maybe into Haskell can show this feature in action. A non-monadic version of add in Haskell looks like this: