Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I try not to write -roll 3drop.
This is wise, and now that Factor has adequate replacements for stack juggling, it even makes sense to NOT make shuffling easy. >> 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. Oh, definitely. I've been trying to come up with some easier notation, but nothing so far. I'm not worried; cleave is SO much better than the old way that it's perhaps only vulnerable to minor, incremental improvement. >> 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. This is what I suspected when I saw Eduardo's post. Good to hear. > Slava -Wm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
