Re: [stack] Re: Flat concatenative basis (was: Concatenative macros?)

Robbert van Dalen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 played with this -- it definitely does make things simpler, since
you don't need to have a "do everything" 'o' combinator; the other
combinators can help supply the needed operators.

Of course, I wasn't imitating ACGT, but was just using 4 bases.

> I also wonder how one can do arithmetics on top of {o,k} without
> resorting to Church numerals.

I haven't bothered trying to find out yet. But another possibility
would be to include a new set of bases especially for handling
numbers. You could even use a separate stack for numbers.

-Billy