Return-Path: X-Sender: cdiggins@... X-Apparently-To: concatenative@yahoogroups.com X-Received: (qmail 7240 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2008 19:34:18 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.95) by m41.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Dec 2008 19:34:18 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.251) by mta16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2008 19:34:17 -0000 X-Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c3so1678995ana.23 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:34:16 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.100.37.20 with SMTP id k20mr9137475ank.5.1230752056451; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:34:16 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.100.239.15 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:34:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:34:16 -0500 To: concatenative@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <37d01e670812310907l36a2490fw876528b5b88c925b@...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <8260FE36-D381-498A-9F9B-69E09DA76DDB@...> <37d01e670812310907l36a2490fw876528b5b88c925b@...> X-Originating-IP: 209.85.132.251 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 From: "Christopher Diggins" Subject: Re: [stack] the concatenative wikipedia article X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=256779255; y=rF40GZYGbAg5S1k4zJiWHC_JsqBhyN9ku-N-1oOLfdCv0UyzDleJ X-Yahoo-Profile: cdiggins.geo >> 1. Concatenative should not be conflated with "stack-based". I have >> already shown that the counter-examples are beyond mere curiosities. > > Agreed entirely. > > I'd like to see your examples, specifically emphasizing how you know > it's concatenative. I didn't notice them. Allow me to present the deque language that I just made up. 1! - Pushes a one to the right of the deque !1 - Pushes a one to the leftt of the deque ... add! - Adds the right two numbers of the deque !add - Adds the left two numbers of the deque ... 3! !5 !2 sub! !add If applied to an empty deque this will leave the value 4 on the deque. So is this a concatenative language? It satisfies many of the criteria, but I am not sure. If we could agree that this is or is not concatenative, it may prove useful. >> So, should I make the changes or should I just define a new term so I >> that can communicate with people without boring myself? I did like >> Diggins's "compositional" suggestion which is more to the point; The >> fact that it is already used in various vague ways doesn't disturb me >> too much. > > I'd like the changes made -- it would be nice to have an encyclopedic > reference for this list's discussions. I'd rather not branch to > another term; I think "concatenative" is well-established and > fruitful, even if it is a bit vague. (But what isn't vague?) Agreed, I think there is value in refining the term concatenative. However, I think it is more important to define it here than somewhere else like a wiki where people with no knowledge of the subject can make arbitrary uninformed edits. Besides whatever is agreed upon in the list can serve as a source of citation for the Wikipedia article. - Christopher