Re: [stack] disallowing recursive definitions

John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> William Tanksley, Jr scripsit:
>  > I agree with the facts of what you said, Nowak (although I don't agree
>  > that this makes concatenative languages "the ultimate GOTO", which
>  > seems to be the implication of what you wrote), and I disagree with
>  > you, Cowan, that performing an arbitrary stack shuffle complicates the
>  > analysis of the tail-call.

>  Good, because that's the reverse of what I said, which is that to tail-call
>  an arbitrary function, all you need to do is to execute an arbitrary shuffle
>  to get the function arguments in the right order -- which is very simple.

Seriously, I'm confused. Why did you start your paragraph with "no,"
if you weren't intending to disagree with me? This probably all comes
down to miscommunication again...

>  Do I contradict myself?                         John Cowan

Probably not.

-Wm