Print

Print


On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 8:10 AM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
[...]
> Yep - no one in this thread, as far as I see, has denied the
> possibility of some sort of human-usable stack-based
> language.  After all, Forth programmers and even LISP
> programmers are human   ;)

Taking that into consideration, I note that Forth programmers do make
use of the full range of stack conjunctions, and are capable of
understanding the semantic effects thereof, but only in a subset of
all possible circumstances. Idiomatically, stack operators are only
used in ways that are guaranteed to manipulate only the arguments to
the current Forth word (if internal to a definition) or logical
phrase; you don't get arbitrary rearrangements of arguments of
different operations unless someone's being deliberately evil or
obtuse.

So, you might get away with a useable compromise between full Fith and
Shallow Fith by specifying stack operators not as actual stack
operators but as components of idiomatic phrases defined like Forth
words, or by adding syntactic restrictions such that stack
conjunctions are only permitted when they would only operate on
arguments of a single predicate.

-l.