Re: [stack] Re: Yet another?

Hi Peter,

I found it last evening by resorting to Google. You've got some  
intriguing
ideas in Furphy, several things I haven't even considered yet. I've only
been working on Catenate since June, so it'll take a while for me to  
catch
up with the rest of you. At the moment, I'm in major assimilation mode.
--
Don Groves

Programmer (n): An organism that turns coffee and cookies into software.



On Aug 17, 2007, at 19:00 , pml060912 wrote:

> --- In [email protected], Don Groves <dgroves@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Christopher and Peter for your kind replies.
>>
>> I've looked at Cat before, Christopher, and found it very impressive!
>> I'll be
>> most pleased if Catenate ever approaches Cat's level of  
>> sophistication.
>>
>> I just tried to read up on Furphy but the url wasn't found, so Peter
>> may be
>> changing his ISP even sooner that he thought.
>
> I checked, and it's actually at
> http://member.netlink.com.au/~peterl/furphy.htm - I was quoting an
> earlier version from before the ISP moved everything around to suit
> itself. If you get there you'll see that I too looked at a fair bit of
> Henry Baker's thinking on linearity. The idea of not having to make
> repeated copies by passing a reference to one function after another
> sort of works, but it forces you into continuation passing (or
> something very like it), which may not suit the internal logic of the
> functions - or your own personal style. There's no real saving if the
> function effectively has to copy to have something to work with  
> itself.
>
> One thing I thought of that would help with linearity is to define
> Forth style @ and ! in terms of DUP, DROP and an inherently
> conservative/linear MEMSWAP ( newconts addr --- oldconts addr ) or
> possibly with stack effects the other way around, and maybe in terms
> of SWAP and other inherently conservative/linear stuff too. Then a
> wide range of behaviour can be built on the @ and ! even if those
> don't get made publicly available in the main language, and you only
> need to get DUP and DROP respecting the linearity to carry everything
> else. You can implement dedicated efficient versions later, but this
> lets you have everything in a prototype carried on a small base that
> you can more easily test fully. This is paper model stuff I have only
> sketched out so far, not prototyped yet.
>
> The thing that reminded me of that is, MEMSWAP does naturally work in
> that continuation passing way just to be conservative/linear. You have
> to throw away an unwanted address on purpose, separately. PML.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>