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.