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

On Feb 26, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Christopher Diggins 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'll second that.
--
don