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

Don Groves wrote:
> 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.

You guys must be high(er order). (Don, I'm not sure if that pun was
actually intended. If it wasn't, sorry I misunderstood you, and my reply
was a pun.)

Higher order languages are cool, but first order languages can be useful
too; FP (AFAIK) is a first-order language, as is (I believe) APL, J, and
NIAL. So's Forth, although being impure it doesn't try to restrict that
in any way (you can kind of play with function references).

> don

-Wm