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

On Mar 6, 2009, at 3:19 AM, spir wrote:

> I would say that quotation is one aspect, or level, or kind, of meta- 
> programming.

They're just a way of pushing first-class functions onto a stack.

> Can a concatenative language live without quotations?

Yes: Forth.
See also: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy/jp-flatjoy.html

> There is something I do not understand. It seems that literal code  
> and word names inside quoting marks are both called quotations:
>
> 	[1 2 3] [dup *] map
>
> 	:square dup *
> 	[1 2 3] [square] map
>
> Isn't there a worthful distinction here?

No. [dup *] and [square] both push a first-class function onto the  
stack. If you do not allow functions to access things inside a  
quotation (as in Cat), '[dup *]' and '[square]' are the same function.

> The first one looks a bit like lambdas, no ?

No. There's no form of abstraction involved.

- John