Re: [stack] function/object ambiguity + quotation alternative

if you search way back in the archives, you'll see that this problem
surfaced fairly early on.  billy and i batted around the idea that the
evaluator could be made "voracious":

    2 [dup] first -> 2 2

i.e. the evaluator would not abide naked functions on the stack; it 
would apply repeatedly until that was not the case.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Nowak" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [stack] function/object ambiguity + quotation alternative


> 
> On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:45 PM, John Nowak wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Stevan Apter wrote:
>>
>>>>  2. [dup] == [dup] first      (removing shared 'i' suffix)
>>>
>>> no.  dup = [dup] first.
>>
>> You're missing the point. I know that 'dup = [dup] first', but I can
>> prove '[dup] == [dup] first'!
> 
> To be more precise, I know '[dup] first' evaluates to the function  
> object 'dup'. I assume this is what you mean.
> 
> That said, the function 'dup' does *not* equal the function '[dup]  
> first'. Obviously '2 dup' yields a different answer than '2 [dup]  
> first'. This is the initial problem I brought up and it may affect XY;  
> I know it affects Joy and Factor. The ability to prove '[dup] == [dup]  
> first' is an additional issue that is XY-specific.
> 
> - John
>