Re: [stack] Re: What does "concatenative" actually mean?

pml060912 wrote:
> William Tanksley <wtanksleyjr@...> wrote:
> > Forth -- and any practical language -- has a huge set of basis
> > functions, and allows you to define your own functions that are used
> > just like basis functions.
> No, actually, it has a rather small set of basis functions.

Probably we have different definitions for the terms "huge" and "basis
functions".

I use the term "basis function" in the formal, mathematical sense
(appropriate for the "functional language" context of the discussion),
rather than as a synonym for "primitive" or "implemented in machine
code". In that sense, a "huge" set of basis functions is when a language
requires far more than the basis functions required in a mathematically
minimal basis set for that type of language.

I don't think it's useful to treat "basis functions" as a synonym for
"primitives".

-Wm