Lambda the Ultimate

My view of actions and action syntax is based on computer hardware and machine language. A computer has memory and a processor, which is analogous to a Turing machine, as well as a person (processor) using a library (memory). In the analogue world there are things like a slide rule which is moved to calculate, electronic devices that are analogs to slide rules, and quantum particles with a state (memory) forces in which motions that process the particles to change their state. Memory and action are universal.

Human languages help us communicate about the universe. An efficient language allows us to accurately and succinctly communicate, and our efficiency in using a language depends partly on our understanding of the language. Thus, I propose a syntax to describe actions. There are four variations, infix, prefix, suffix and nullary. A subroutine acts on parameters, constants and/or variables. The simplest form is nullary which takes no arguments; such subroutines may compute Pi, get the time, or retrieve data from memory (i.e., act as a variable). Prefix and suffix forms are more complex, and infix most complex. These four forms describe all possible variations of subroutine name and arguments in a statement. However, there are other facets of subroutine call syntax to consider.

The other syntax facets may include, but are not limited to the following: punctuation, keywords, and argument order. To be completely extensible requires there be no immutable punctuation, nor reserved keywords, nor inflexible order. And, of course, arguments may either precede or succeed the subroutine name. Finally, arguments may be characters, character strings (names), or strings of character strings (expressions). These are requirements needed to make a subroutine call syntax for an extensible language that does not require metaphrase layering to express all variations of subroutine call. There is at least one solution that avoids metaphrase layering. I am curious to know if there there are any others.