On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:48:26AM -0600, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > A possible GSoC project?
> Sure, though it would be difficult to e accepted without demonstrating
> to us that you would have a good chance in completing this task, with
> a concrete plan of what you're going to do. (I'm not sure
> A possible GSoC project?
>
> Miles
Sure, though it would be difficult to e accepted without demonstrating
to us that you would have a good chance in completing this task, with
a concrete plan of what you're going to do. (I'm not sure if I would
be.)
In general, you're much more likely to be acc
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:31:39PM -0600, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> However, no concatenative language has yet been designed which is both
> dynamically typed and supports call( with row polymorphism. Andreas
> Rossberg specified a static type system for a concatenative language
> with row polymorp
On 26 February 2010 20:04, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> A good starting point is the article, "Combinator stack effects"
Ah, I follow now. I had read that article before, but the implications
hadn't sunk in.
Thanks,
Paul
-
A good starting point is the article, "Combinator stack effects"
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 26 February 2010 19:31, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>> One solution to the whole set of incompatiblities between call and
>> call( would be to eliminate call in favor of call(, el
On 26 February 2010 19:31, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> One solution to the whole set of incompatiblities between call and
> call( would be to eliminate call in favor of call(, eliminating the
> combinator inlining system in the process. In my opinion, this would
> make the whole language much cleane
Well, almost everything uses call rather than call(, because it is
more flexible in a subtle way. The difference is that call allows what
the shadowy Factor council likes to refer to as "row polymorphism",
that is, quotations passed to call can refer to items lower on the
stack. For example, you ca
Here's where the code is : http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Active_object#Factor
I really need dynamic quotations because quotations are inputted by the user.
I was surprised that no combinator defines a similar word to call(.
For example, I thought there would be a bi@( word. Maybe even for all
combin
2010/2/26 Daniel Ehrenberg
Well, I think you could also do this:
>
> build-dynamic-quotation '[ _ call( x -- y ) ] bi@
>
Sure, this is equivalent.But we wanted to be able to "tag" several
quotations with different stack effects, hence the separate word.
> However, you should reconsider whether
Well, I think you could also do this:
build-dynamic-quotation '[ _ call( x -- y ) ] bi@
However, you should reconsider whether you really need to build a
dynamic quotation. Remember, building a quotation with curry and
compose and fry doesn't necessarily make it dynamic. In the current
Factor cod
10 matches
Mail list logo
