Re: [stack] stOck

WT wrote:-

> have you looked at Factor's support for the
> spread/cleave combinator set?

I'm don't want to open another canOworms ?
Unless it could have been explained in lines < 2,
instead of 'go & get it', it's no good.

== Chris Glur.

PS. stacking doesn't hope to map to the problem domain.
It DOES map to how any task is done.
All tasks can/are decomposed heirarchically.
When the chicken swallows the worm, it does eg:
1. take in beak  ....
2. move to throat....
3. swallow ...

But 'swallow' decomposes into a 'tree' of sub-tasks.

So too, when you mail this reply, you do a sequence/cat
of subtasks,each of which is a tree hence stacked.

So every task in the universe uses a stack/tree
 of sub-tasks by it's 'actor?

So the stack will always be there for implimentation.
But if you want it more hidden 'we can do that'.
OTOH *you do* stcck your actions into sub-actions,
so the stack/tree is NOT an un-natural mental model ?