Re: [stack] stackless fixed-arity concatenative languages

On May 22, 2008, at 11:32 AM, William Tanksley, Jr wrote:

> If it's a problem for "a system like Fifth" it's not a fundamental
> problem with concatenative languages in general :-). Sorry I'm selfish
> that way.

I can't argue with that. It's just unfortunate that HM + row types  
isn't enough.

> Like I said, I'd like to see a system that tied static
> typing/inference, BDD, and DBC. Such a system could (in theory) limit
> its static analysis to just the function, its contract, and its BDD
> specifications, and then require a unique concrete type (no $ type
> variables).

This is an interesting idea, although it might be a bit heavy in  
practice. I'll give it a look.

- John