Billy and all, Sorry for taking so long to respond to this. When I first read your email, the server hosting Chris Okasaki's paper was apparently down. And...
... I agree -- and it was both instructive and reasonably fun to read. ... Indeed it did! I especially appreciate you including your reasoning. Not only do I...
... i thought it might be subliminal tribute to o[kasak]i....
sa@...
Feb 6, 2007 7:53 pm
3197
My apologies to the many people (I hope) reading this list and hoping for something useful. This stuff is a LONG way from usefulness. I hope that it will...
... Wow! That's much better. Nice work. ... Well, what exactly do you mean by that? There's certainly one combinator which is shorter in my {o,i}, namely "i"....
... From: "William Tanksley, Jr" <wtanksleyjr@...> ... i think this should be 00101 0011 1 1 = [] q k k i've posted an interpreter for 01 at: ...
stevan apter
sa@...
Feb 8, 2007 11:15 pm
3200
... [A] [] q k k = [[A]] [A] k k = A k Too many k's. What might be messing things up is how you treat the [A B] term in the result of 'q'. In this quotation,...
Billy & all, I hacked at my old Joy searcher for a while and was at last able to persuade it to deal with improper combinators; so I've been able to determine...
... From: "William Tanksley, Jr" <wtanksleyjr@...> To: <concatenative@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [stack]...
stevan apter
sa@...
Feb 9, 2007 12:54 pm
3203
... This is one of the things that confuses me about this notation -- but it's something you have to learn. The reason it's confusing to us is that it's a...
... [:] ... [:] ... my confusion was purely notational: i didn't realize that "A B" meant (what i would write as) "A^B", although the left-hand-side of the...
sa@...
Feb 9, 2007 4:38 pm
3205
... Thanks, but obviously it builds on your work -- you actually know what you're doing, and you get all the credit for making it make sense. I suspect that...
... Included at the end of this post. ... Indeed. Although I'm also interested in genetic systems, my main interest is in understanding languages for use by...
i would be extremely interested in reading a description of the algorithm. (my dog ate my credit card) ... From: "William Tanksley, Jr" <wtanksleyjr@...>...
stevan apter
sa@...
Feb 9, 2007 10:03 pm
3209
... Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that. It's at http://www.tunes.org/~iepos/joys.zip (it's linked from the article "Theory of Concatenative Combinators"); I...
... It basically works by trying all programs of size 0 (There aren't too many of these :-) ), then all programs of size 1, and so forth, testing each program...
thanks brent as usual, work that you consider throw-away contains more insights than can fit in a standard published article, much less the margins of one. ......
stevan apter
sa@...
Feb 11, 2007 12:07 am
3212
... I'm looking forward to your genetic system -- one would expect that it would be useful for the same purpose. Perhaps you should tailor a version of it to...
Great stuff! Still, I don't see the need for a flat binary base (except for extreme simplicity and fun). Why not allow 4 flat primitives that follow the 4...
... That's a great reason :-). I'm using it to better understand perfect flatness, in hopes that I can see whether flatness has any desirable properties. It's...
You all may probably realize this, but functional stack-based languages have great potential for efficient performance and concurrency. Today I managed to get...
From http://tunes.org/~iepos/joy.html This sentence never quite sat well with me: "however, there is no way to form "dip" or "sip" using just "s" and "k"...
I think you are wrong about cons. First consideration: The pure (data independent) stack shufflers swap, dup, rollup,and also pure combinators like i and dip,...
Hmm... most of the constructions I used (except dip and cons) were lifted directly from Brent's article. It sounds like perhaps the your definition of b...
... "[i] cons" is a no-op acting on one stack item: [A] [i] cons == [[A] i] == [A] So that would make cat = swap swap cons == cons which can't be right. In any...
Thank you very much for patiently explaining the concept and proof of "dip free" constructions to me Brent, I greatly appreciate it. - Christopher [Non-text...
... Thank you! Let me first say that recasting combinatorial operations in terms of a flat concatenative language has made it MUCH easier for me to reason ...
... Well, although building flat bases (e.g., {o, k}) has been great fun, to me it seems like this system is only simpler in a fairly artificial way. This is...
... It's simpler in a syntactic sense, not in a semantic sense. That's not artificial; syntax is a fundemental attribute of a language. However, the conversion...
