Re: [stack] stOck

Le Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:10:32 -0700,
William Tanksley <[email protected]> s'exprima ainsi:

> spir wrote:
> > [Sean: thought you may be interested.]
> 
> Indeed -- Raven is a very interesting language.

I like the way one can simply name formal parameters using 'use'.

> > Hello concatenators,
> > I would like to exchange about possible drawbacks of a data stack and
> > a weird idea on a possible replacement. Maybe all of this is not new,
> > sorry if ever, but I could not find references.
> 
> One question: How does this differ from any other semi-concatenative
> language's support for "local variables"?
 
As I see it, not the same purpose, while there are indeed overlapping use cases. Local vars, as such, are not passed on the stack/stock: they do not belong to the data flow.

But there is another drawback of my proposal (I realized a short while after posting ;-). The logic is not the same inside the func def and from the caller point of view. Precisely, the definition will often be genral while the call is specific. As a consequence, proper naming should not be the same.
For instance one might define a func that works for any integer and call the arg 'n', while for the caller it should be named 'count', 'pos', or whatever.

Denis
------
la vita e estrany