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

On Feb 28, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Stevan Apter wrote:

>> The trouble is that both approaches make it impossible to reduce in  
>> an
>> arbitrary order and at arbitrary levels. For example, I'd like to be
>> able to do the following:
>>
>>   1 2 3 + [[dup] first] [swap] first 5 2 +
>>   1 2 3 + [`dup] [swap] first 5 2 +
>>   1 2 3 + [`dup] [swap] first 7
>>   1 2 3 + [`dup] `swap 7
>>   1 5 [`dup] `swap 7
>
> sure.  but `dup is just notation.  it's a method of recording that dup
> has changed its role in the reduction.

*explodes*

The whole point is that dup would not just serve that role! You could  
write `dup and it would be a valid program or you could write `(dup  
swap) and it would be a valid program. See my original email and this  
comment in my other response to you:

> Unfortunately, I take issue with zallambo's proposal. My problem with
> it--if I understand it correctly--is that it creates two languages,
> one for writing programs and another to use when reducing them.
> Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but he said 'foo denotes an
> *object*, and objects are not part of the term language when writing a
> program. "All terms denote functions."

> ...

> This syntax has the advantages of zallambo's, but it has an important
> additional benefit; each step of the reduction is itself a valid
> program. To repeat, the syntax we use for the reduction can also be
> used for writing programs.

I don't see how I can be more clear. Perhaps you've just lost interest  
awhile back. I know I have.

Time for my morning coffee...

- John