Re: [stack] impure concatenativity: let without translation

On Mar 19, 2008, at 7:20 PM, rahul wrote:

> ...
>> 1. It is necessary to run the program in order to get the  
>> definitions.
>> This is obviously massively complicates, well, everything really.
>>
>> 2. Type checking is awkward as you run into errors in the definition
>> before you know what the definition will be named. Error reporting
>> becomes more difficult.
>>
>> 3. There's no way to introduce recursive definitions as the recursive
>> call needs to be resolved before the name of the function is known.
>>
>> 4. Tool support is largely out the window.
>>
>> 5. You can't ensure that type checking or compilation will ever
>> terminate.
>
> Why cant we build a tree of tokens (first pass) and work with the  
> tree?

We can.

> ie, once we assure that the quotes are balanced, it resolves into a  
> pure
> expression tree (same as a prefix-lang) right?

Yes, but I don't see how that helps with the five issues I mentioned.

- John