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

On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Stevan Apter wrote:

> i guess i don't see the problem here.  f, [f], [[f]], ...  seems
> quite intuitive to me.

Last try. Please don't take the list format below as exasperation,  
condescension, or anything of the like; I just want to convince you  
I'm not nuts at this point:

1. '[dup] first' returns the *function object* 'dup'.
2. '[dup] first != dup' because the 'dup' on the right is a *function*  
and not a *function object* as it was in 1.
3. I want a notation to avoid this confusion.
4. I have proposed '[dup] first == `dup', where '`dup' is a *function*  
that pushes the *function object* 'dup' onto the stack.
5. '`dup' must be a *function*, not a *function object*, because all  
terms in a concatenative language denote functions; if they weren't  
functions, you couldn't concatenate them to compose them.

- John