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

i meant that i don't disagree that functions on the stack are a 
good thing.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Nowak" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [stack] function/object ambiguity + quotation alternative


> 
> On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Stevan Apter wrote:
> 
>>>> the evaluator would not abide naked functions on the stack; it  
>>>> would apply repeatedly until that was not the case.
>>>
>>> Then you have a first order language. I don't really see what that
>>>
>>> buys you. Why not allow functions on the stack? It seems to me that
>>> higher-order languages are only a positive thing. Joy and its ilk are
>>> only interesting to me because they allow functions on the stack.
>>
>> i don't disagree.
> 
> You should disagree unless you're suggesting that '5 [dup]' evaluate  
> to '5 5'. Are you? I wasn't under the impression that you meant to  
> make that point. If you weren't suggesting that, the language would  
> remain higher-order.
> 
>> so in cat, what's on the stack after evaluating [dup]first?
> 
> This is not possible in Cat because quotations are not manipulatable  
> as such. This is necessary to preserve extensionality (e.g. '[1 2  
> drop] == [1]') and to allow the language to be typed.
> 
> - John
>