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

On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:19 PM, William Tanksley wrote:

> 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.)

It was, and it wasn't -- I left it up to the reader.

Yours definitely was -- and a good one too ;-)


> 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).

I did a lot of that in Forth, but it's much nicer to have it part
of the language rather than a kludge.
--
don


>> don
>
> -Wm
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>