Re: [stack] sweetening concatenative syntax

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [stack] sweetening concatenative syntax


> On Mar 5, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Stevan Apter wrote:
> 
>> temperament, taste, and further imponderable subjectivities.
> 
> Well, perhaps this is worth testing then. Here's how I'm suggesting one
> could write a non-tail-recursive 'map' in terms of 'cons' and 'unlist':
> 
> f map = unlist:
>  []
>  [x xs -> (f x) (map xs f) cons]
> 
>> i want my concatenativity neat, straight no chaser.
> 
> How would you personally write this in a purely concatenative form? No
> cheating by using combinators like 'fold'; you only get to use 'cons' (a
> {a} -> {a}) and 'unlist' (A {b} [A -> C] [A b {b} -> C] -> C).

my joy is so rusty these days.  i'm on the wagon.

in the g variant of my f language:

[[dup!count![]top!]dip!swap!
 [[uncons!]dip!dup!top!
  [cons!unit!. first!swons!]dipd!]
 do!pop!pop!|]                          map             "[..][f]map!"

and in XY:

; map [jump] [each* rot => map <= swons] [pop] ifte ;
; each* => uncons <= tuck 2slip ;

in both languages, all words are bottom out in symbolic primitives.  six or
seven for XY, rather more for g.

details here:  www.nsl.com.

> 
> - John
> 
>