Re: [stack] Is this language concatenative?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:19 pm, William Tanksley, Jr wrote:
> Michael Nedzelsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The language L \subset T* is concatenative if and only if it satisfies
> > the following requirements:
>
> Nice. Actually, I would point out that this is a definition for flat
> concatenative languages; a concatenative language may not be
> factorable in the manner you're describing.
I disagree. For example:
[1 2 +] 3
is a concatenation of two simple programs
[1 2 +]
3
The inner structure of the simple program can be complex.
Of course, this definition of concatenative language covers only the first 
layer.

> I also need to point out that this describes only the syntax, whereas
> the traditional usage also contrains the semantics.
I am aware of it. At first I  want to see what can be achieved with syntax 
only.

> > It seems to me that the Cat and Joy are both strict left and right
> > concatenative languages according to this defintion.
>
> Quotations make it impossible to textually factor a program into
> primitives, don't they?
Quotation is a simple program - it is not a concatenation of non-empty 
programs.

 Michael Nedzelsky



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/concatenative/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/concatenative/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/