Message from discussion why forth over lisp?
From: Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk>
Subject: Re: why forth over lisp?
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:57:22 +0100
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: individual.net /x6JR3JPdJ0Jgx6YuTHt+gqSwwKb/gtT56dsrNswX/pMqzYoiu
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pge+5BhBzNxtWVZ5DmBoytRQ7FI= sha1:bahGTf0cRHxruov7OenHGlTmQpQ=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> writes:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:19:18 +0100, Nick
> <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>>George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> writes:
>>> Lua 5 still is basically a stack machine - it's a variant of what's
>>> generally called a "deep access" stack, in which the machine can
>>> access "deep" stack elements directly. Lua's variation does away with
>>> push/pop/etc. top-of-stack instructions.
>>I find it hard to attach the term "stack" to something that doesn't have
>>"push/pop/etc". That is, to me, what makes it a stack rather than some
>>other sort of data structure.
> Well, its a stack of activation records rather than a stack of
> individual elements.
I've got absolutely no problem with that - but I'd say you push and pop
activation records on and off the stack.
I often push records onto stacks in C - linked lists of structures.
It's still a stack and it's still pushing and popping to me.
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk