Re: [stack] disallowing recursive definitions

On 2/3/08 12:51 AM, "Stevan Apter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>  
> i'm still puzzled why authors of concatenative languages like cat and factor
       have resisted the incorporation of array primitives into their
languages. 

But why do they need to be primitives? Many languages have a small core
and a large library of defined functions. One such library might be for a
collection of basic array functions in terms of which all other array
functions
can be defined. Then the library might be expanded by also giving the
definitions of the most useful ones.

There might be many different possible collections of basic ones, that seems
to be true for most abstract algebras. Probably the ones offered by the
existing array languages are both complete as a base and most useful.
Are there any which cannot be defined in Joy (with lists instead of arrays)?
If so, please let me know.

  - Manfred


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]