Re: [stack] the concatenative wikipedia article

>> 1. Concatenative should not be conflated with "stack-based". I have
>> already shown that the counter-examples are beyond mere curiosities.
>
> Agreed entirely.
>
> I'd like to see your examples, specifically emphasizing how you know
> it's concatenative. I didn't notice them.

Allow me to present the deque language that I just made up.

1! - Pushes a one to the right of the deque
!1 - Pushes a one to the leftt of the deque
...
add! - Adds the right two numbers of the deque
!add - Adds the left two numbers of the deque
...

3! !5 !2 sub! !add

If applied to an empty deque this will leave the value 4 on the deque.

So is this a concatenative language? It satisfies many of the
criteria, but I am not sure. If we could agree that this is or is not
concatenative, it may prove useful.

>> So, should I make the changes or should I just define a new term so I
>> that can communicate with people without boring myself? I did like
>> Diggins's "compositional" suggestion which is more to the point; The
>> fact that it is already used in various vague ways doesn't disturb me
>> too much.
>
> I'd like the changes made -- it would be nice to have an encyclopedic
> reference for this list's discussions. I'd rather not branch to
> another term; I think "concatenative" is well-established and
> fruitful, even if it is a bit vague. (But what isn't vague?)

Agreed, I think there is value in refining the term concatenative.
However, I think it is more important to define it here than somewhere
else like a wiki where people with no knowledge of the subject can
make arbitrary uninformed edits. Besides whatever is agreed upon in
the list can serve as a source of citation for the Wikipedia article.

- Christopher