Re: [stack] array theory question

On Dec 22, 2008, at 7:18 PM, John Cowan wrote:

> Backing off to your underlying issue, there is no problem with either
> identifying tuples of size 1 with scalars in languages that have  
> tuples,
> or not doing so.  ML, Haskell, and Pure do: Python and Q don't.

You are correct here. The issue is that I want to do it with lists/ 
arrays of arbitrary length, not tuples. In other words, I'd like this  
to work, where '&' is a psuedo partial application and ':' is  
application:

    (add2 & 2) : 3       ==>  5
    (add3 & 2) : {3, 4}  ==>  9

The question here is what the semantics of '&' are. In the former, it  
appears to be as such where '++' is 'cons':

    (f & x) : y  ==  f : (x ++ (y ++ {}))

In the latter however, the enlisting of the argument on the right side  
of the application is not necessary as it is already a list:

    (f & x) : {y, z}  ==  f : (x ++ {y, z})

What I'm hoping might make sense here is making the atom 'y'  
equivalent to '{y}'. This would allow the second form of '&' shown  
above to be used in the general case. Do you think that may be  
workable? Is it comparable to what Nial or APL do?

Thanks for the help.

- John