Re: [stack] the concatenative wikipedia article

John Nowak <[email protected]> wrote:
> The general idea that I've had for a prefix/infix language is as
> follows:

> 1. 'f g' denotes the composition of 'f' and 'g'
> 2. 'f g h' denotes the composition of 'g' with the construction of 'f'
> and 'h' (construction is basically a cleave combinator)
> 3. Grouping is to the right such that 'f g h i j k == f g (h i (j k))'
> 4. Composition is associative such that '(f g) h == f (g h)'

> So, is this concatenative? It's just composition and cleave combinators.

As I see it, no. The problem is that grouping is semantically
significant (rule 3), but not syntactically significant (rules 1&2).
It violates my rule that a concatenative language must have
associative semantics and syntax -- that means no required implicit
grouping.

> - John

-Wm