Re: [stack] Re: Concatenative macros?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Tanksley, Jr" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [stack] Re: Concatenative macros?


> stevan apter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Construct 'i':
> > > 00101 0011 1 =
> > >    [] q k =
> > >    i
> 
> > i think this should be
> > 00101 0011 1 1 =
> >     [] q k k
> 
> [A] [] q k k =
> [[A]] [A] k k =
> A k
> 
> Too many k's.
> 
> What might be messing things up is how you treat the [A B] term in the
> result of 'q'. In this quotation, [A] is [], which means that A must
> be nothing. It's kind of (severely) wierd, but that's how it works.
> Does your interpreter act that way?

it does now.  that wasn't at all clear (to me) from the description of 'q'.

    [B] [A] q == [[B]] [A B]

shouldn't that be

    [B] [A] q == [[B]] [A B] if A is not []
                 [[B]] B if A is []

?

did i read right past that in brent's original explanation?

  O["";"[1][0]q"]
[[1]][[0][1]]

  O["";"[1][]q"]
[[1]][1]

  O["";"[][0]q"]
[[]][[0][]]

do i have this right, or should B = [] produce analogous
behavior?

in any case, kudos to both you and brent.  this is fascinating.

> 
> > i've posted an interpreter for 01 at:
> >     http://www.nsl.com/k/01.k
> 
> You are amazing. :-)
> 
> -Billy
>