Re: [stack] Compiling latest Joy
- --- Manfred von Thun <phimvt@...>
>Yes, this clears a lot of things up. On a related
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, John Cowan wrote:
> > Ocie Mitchell scripsit:
> > > Sorry to post such an elementary question,
> There is no need to apologise, this one of the
> for the mailing group.
> > > but I want
> > > to start using the language as soon as possible.
> > > grabbed the latest tarfile of the Joy sources
> and was
> > > able to compile OK, but the interpreter gives me
> > > errors when I try to define via the '=='
> > Definitions are only recognized between LIBRA (for
> which DEFINE is
> > a synonym) and a period, thus:
> > LIBRA
> > foo == dup *;
> > bar == dup +.
> > Individual definitions are separated by
> Thanks for the clarification, John.
note, does this mean that you can't programmatically
create a definition? Is this something that is
intentionally not allowed?
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
- Ocie Mitchell wrote:
> Yes, this clears a lot of things up. On a relatedBasically no (it would be possible to bypass the
> note, does this mean that you can't programmatically
> create a definition? Is this something that is
> intentionally not allowed?
rules by writing out definitions into a file and
then using "include" on the file). Defined words
are essential for modularity, but they are not
actually necessary, since each is replaced
*directly* by its definition. The Joy1 system
does this at run time, but in principle it
could be done at compile time instead
(except for problems with recursion, which
can be eliminated by using combinators instead).
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel