Re: [stack] Combining Combinators

Manfred Von Thun <[email protected]> wrote:
> At level one there are functions which take zero level entities
> as arguments. At level two there are combinators which take
> level one entities as arguments but cannot take level zero
> entities as arguments. Examples: dip, nullary, map, filter, fold.
> At level three there would be functions which take level two
> entities as arguments but cannot take level one entities as
> arguments. If there are such things at all, let foo be one of them.
> Then the first below would be meaningful, but the second would not:

NOW I get it. Thank you for persevering.

I think Chris' explanation makes sense: Joy's type semantics are just
a bit too vague to allow a clean answer to this question. He gave the
example of 'i' and 'dip' accepting different levels for execution, in
spite of being (allegedly) mutually definable.

>   - Manfred

-Billy