On Jun 10, 2008, at 4:34 PM, William Tanksley, Jr wrote: > There's a huge difference between shuffles (which are countable and > always terminate) and quotations with locals (which are > Turing-complete). Both have their places, but let me put it this way: > if you were writing phrases like "-roll 3drop" in your code, would you > rather code that as "s[abcd--d]" or "[|a b c d| d] call"? The former > can be read as a single gestalt; the latter has to be mentally checked > to make sure it's not executing anything.
I try not to write -roll 3drop. Some older code still has complex stack manipulation but in my new code I haven't even been using rot much. I will revisit the old code over time. > Of course, ideally the language will need no shuffles, and I give > credit to Factor for being ahead of any other concatenative language > in that respect. I _love_ what you've come up with there (although I > find the cleave,etc. nomenclature very difficult to read). It is easy to read once you get some practice writing code with it. > Dan: yes, I've seen the extra/shuffles library. If it's the same one I > saw before, that's why I didn't think Factor supported shuffles, > because rather than tapping into the parser, you have to define all > possible names for shuffles. Factor supports parsing words so you can define shufflers that way too. Slava ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
