Re: [stack] are concatenative languages applicative?

John Nowak scripsit:

> We need to be more careful. Joy programs are expressed entirely in  
> terms of functions. Joy is a function-level language. I'll give three  
> examples to make this clear:
> 
> - '[1 2 3]' is a *function* of type 'A -> A [B -> B Num Num Num]';  
> when evaluated, it pushes the *value* [1 2 3] of type '[A -> A Num Num  
> Num]' onto the stack

I deny this.  I say that the type of [1 2 3] as a value is [Int Int Int],
and as a function its type is A -> A [Int Int Int].

> - '1 2 3' is a *function* of type 'A -> A Num Num Num'; when  
> evaluated, the *values* 1, 2, and 3 get pushed onto the stack

I agree with that.

> - '3' is a *function* of type 'A -> A Num', not a value of type 'Num'  
> as in Haskell or ML; when evaluated, the *value* 3 gets pushed onto  
> the stack [...]

You are making a distinction between '3' and 3 that I believe to be
unwarranted.  There is only 3, and it is both a numeric value and
a function to be applied to the stack.

> In short, even '3' is a function in Joy. This should be obvious as we  
> can assign a name to it:
> 
>     foo = 3
> 
> Here, we're not binding 'foo' to the value of 3; we're declaring that  
> 'foo' is a function that pushes '3' onto the stack. 

We are doing both at once.

> Never at any point are we manipulating values.

The function +, among many others, can only be understood in terms
of values.

-- 
Barry gules and argent of seven and six,        John Cowan
on a canton azure fifty molets of the second.   [email protected]
        --blazoning the U.S. flag               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan