Re: [stack] the concatenative wikipedia article

John Nowak scripsit:

> I'd say yes. Ideally, we'd like to be both clear *and* precise. I  
> think such a definition would satisfy the first requirement (it's  
> clear) but not the latter (it's too broad to be useful). It might be  
> worth considering if we had some other interesting associative  
> operations to base a programming language on, but I (thankfully) can't  
> think of any.

I agree.  It seems to me essential for a concatenative language that the
associative operation in question be composition and not something else.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    [email protected]
[T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston