Re: [stack] are concatenative languages applicative?

John Nowak scripsit:

> Maybe I'm not being precise enough. The type of the term '3' is 'A ->  
> A Num', just like the type of '1 2 3' is 'A -> A Num Num Num'.

That is, those are their types when they are seen as functions.  When
seen as values, their types are 'Num' and 'Num Num Num'.

> No we're not; we don't evaluate the right-hand side to figure out what  
> to bind 'foo' too.

Correct.  The declaration "foo == 3" means that as functions 'foo' and '3'
have the same function type, namely 'A -> A Int'.  (As values, they are
still different:  '3' has type Int, 'foo' has type Symbol.)

But where we differ, or did differ, is about '[1 2 3]', which I say has a
function type of 'A -> A [Num Num Num]', not 'A -> [A -> A Num Num Num]]'.
And that is because Joy lists are not inherently quotations, though they
are treated as quotations by certain functions.

-- 
Man has no body distinct from his soul,                 John Cowan
for that called body is a portion of the soul           [email protected]
discerned by the five senses,                           http://www.ccil.org
the chief inlets of the soul in this age.  --William Blake