Re: [stack] An Overlooked Paradigm in Functional Programming

chris glur <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The absurdity of MANUALLY translating the 1-line pseudocode
> > to joy, when a simple/immediate algol-like compilation is
> > available tells much?
> ]That's not even a remotely fair translation as it's not recursive like
> ]the example. The straight-forward recursive function is as such:
> I MIGHT analyse your code in the future, but:
> I merely PASTED the joy-author's ample 1-line pseudocode and HIS
>  joy version.
>

That's a lousy excuse for refusing to accept an answer to your problem. Just
because you did no research doesn't mean there's no answer.

I won't follow your NEW argument about Haskell etc. on the going
> nowhere [because it's fun] journey. Can't someone answer MY question/s?
> I've got a specific goal and am NOT just playing 'look ma no hands' !


Your specific goal *seems* to be to program in a low-level non-concatenative
language and a high-level concatenative language. Since that goal is
reversed from anyone else's I've ever met, I'm mildly interested -- I like
contrarian thinking (that's why I'm studying concatenative languages).

It so happens that there's plenty of solutions to your specific problem,
even though they don't match your specific question.

-Wm


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]