Re: [stack] stackless fixed-arity concatenative languages

On May 22, 2008, at 11:48 AM, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

> Well, there actually is a difference in semantics in a pure language,
> in the arities involved. Your bi@ can be used with a quotation of the
> type ( b c -- d ) for an overall type of ( b c b c -- d d ) whereas
> Factor's cannot. On the other hand, Factor's bi@ can be used for ( b
> -- c d ) for an overall type of  ( b b -- c d c d ) whereas yours
> cannot (though it could be used for ( b -- b c ) as ( b b -- b c c ).
> The type of dup dup dip might be something more like  A b (A -> C e /\
> C -> D) -> D e

Interesting. It seems the question going forward is if we want the  
language and type system to do away with all this confusion and over- 
generality or do its best to deal with it.

- John