Re: [stack] Is this language concatenative?

On Wed, 2 May 2007 02:12 am, John Cowan wrote:
> Michael Nedzelsky scripsit:
> > It seems to me (I can be wrong here),  that already Joy is not _entirely_
> > concatenative because of quotation. I think the quotation as basic
> > operation has the same status as concatenation.
>
> Joy does not have quotation as such.  It does have literal lists, but
> whether a list is executed or not depends on the surrounding program. 
> Furthermore, whatever can be done with literal lists can be done without
> them:
> [a b c] is equivalent to this flat program:
>
> 	"a" intern "b" intern "c" intern cons cons
I think you mean the following:
       "a" intern "b" intern "c" intern [] cons cons cons

It is interesting. The article 
www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy/jp-flatjoy.html
contains the definition of Floy which is  subset of Joy in which quotations 
are not allowed to contain more than one atom.

But if any literal list can be constructed using only string literals, intern, 
[] and cons, then the subset of Floy in which the only quotation is empty 
list is already sufficient. Am I missing anything here?

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/