Re: [stack] Stack Shuffling Operator Mnemonics

On 1/9/07, William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Christopher Diggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The next logical step then seems to be to simply drop the "-", and use
> > the library defined "abac" function that I proposed.
>
> How many of those functions do you want to type in by hand? Which ones
> are you skipping?

A few dozen, but that's the point of standard libraries, someone does
the work once and for all and it can be reused over and over again.

> > Now you don't
> > have to change the syntax of the language at all, which seems to be a
> > huge plus.
>
> Most consideration of languages breaks the syntax into two parts: a
> lexer and a parser. The parser is the complex part. This change
> addresses only the lexer.

There is more to it than that, your proposed change would do more than
simply add a new token to be parsed. You are effectively adding a new
kind of expression. There would be several new grammar rules needed.

> I also don't see how refusing to change a language's syntax is a "huge
> plus". I don't even see it as positive -- lack of change is a zero,
> not a positive.

I'm just trying to say that when comparing the two design approaches
for Cat, the simpler language design is far more favourable for my
purposes.

Maybe the stack shuffling is a good direction for Joy. I can
definitely see advantages though for other language designs. As I
mentioned before I think a language with stack shuffling semantics is
a great idea, especially for a higher level language than Cat.

It all boils down to what the language design goals are I think.