Print

Print


Ray Brown wrote at 2005-06-11 20:17:14 (+0100)

 > On Friday, June 10, 2005, at 07:26 , Patrick Littell wrote:
 > >
 > > To be needlessly picky about it, a stack language -- that is, one whose
 > > underlying computational implementation is a stack -- is still a
 > > tree-structured language.  More precisely, it's the reverse Polish
 > > notation (postfix traversal) of a tree.  If it weren't, the stack would
 > > either underrun or (eventually) overflow.
 >
 > I don't think you're being needlessly picky. What you say is quite
 > correct.  IMHO the author of the FAQ that Steven quoted is being
 > rather vague, and "I feel no urge to attempt to describe such
 > horrors" seems a bit of a let-out to me. Has the author thought
 > through what s/he's writing? Without an attempt to describe 'such
 > horrors' I take the FAQ with a big pinch of salt.

Have you read it?  (To begin with, it's not an FAQ - I don't know why
Steven called it that.)

 > My impression is that the author of the FAQ has not really thought
 > through what s/he has written. IMO without the attempt to describe
 > 'such horrors' it does not really say anything more than "Alien
 > grammars may be quite different from any grammars of our familiar
 > earth languages."
 >
 > So what? Until we encounter any such aliens, we will not know.
 >

What do you mean "so what"?  That's a perfectly reasonable point to
make in that context.