Re: [stack] disallowing recursive definitions

Manfred Von Thun scripsit:

> > But surely a molecule like "ls -l -C 2" is just syntactic sugar for
> > ordinary Joy "[-l -c 2] ls", where the list is treated by the "ls"
> > word as a list, not a quotation?
> 
> That is one possible notation. But if a command frequently uses no
> modifiers, then that notation  would force users to supply an empty list
> of modifiers, as ³[] ls² for your example, in the most frequent uses.

Indeed.  But I was only saying that arguments to a word are nothing
*fundamentally* new, unlike (say) alternation.  That doesn't mean that
the syntactic sugar isn't worth having.

> 5. ls(-l ­c 2) #  functional notation optional modifier list, currently my
> favourite 

I too prefer this syntax.

> I must confess that my own list of possible modifiers for concatenative
> languages is miniscule compared with the multitude of modifiers in
> unix. But I am hoping that that is mostly a failure of imagination on
> my part.

Modifiers to primitives may not be that useful, but modifiers to
user-written words are a different story.

> If anything like this is introduced, then a decision has to be made
> whether modifiers are just for the primitives or also for user defined
> molecules.

I think it's important to have them for both.

-- 
John Cowan   [email protected]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag
went over me.  I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am
Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider.  --Bilbo to Smaug