Re: [stack] Re: Flat concatenative basis (was: Concatenative macros?)
Robbert van Dalen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.concatenative |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Great stuff!
Still, I don't see the need for a flat binary base (except for
extreme simplicity and fun).
Why not allow 4 flat primitives that follow the 4 bases (ACGT) of
DNA? :)
I'm not sure but that may lead to smaller programs.
I also wonder how one can do arithmetics on top of {o,k} without
resorting to Church numerals.
On Feb 11, 2007, at 1:27 AM, William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
> stevan apter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > as usual, work that you consider throw-away contains more
> insights than can fit in a standard
> > published article, much less the margins of one.
>
> I'm looking forward to your genetic system -- one would expect that it
> would be useful for the same purpose. Perhaps you should tailor a
> version of it to accept the same input as Kerby's, so we cant directly
> compare them.
>
> Also, Enchilada's tree data structure might be extremely useful for
> this.
If the flat base {o,k} settles to a definite version I would be very
happy to implement it on top of Enchilada's tree structure.
(or provide you guys with the algorithms).
>
> -Billy
>
>
Robbert.
>