Guys,
As you know, Joy has a combinator called 'cleave' which is like Factor's
'bi'.
This is the paper in which I discovered Joy's 'cleave' and which served
as inspiration for Factor's related combinators:
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy/j01tut.html
If I were writing the paper, I'd cite the Joy tutorial, at least in the
"related work" section.
'spread' and 'napply' were indeed "home grown" by myself and just made
sense after 'cleave'.
Joy has 'unary1' through 'unary4':
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy/html-manual.html
which appear to be like Factor's 'napply' family.
The Introduction says that these are:
New abstractions for managing the flow of data in stack-based
languages
As I mention above, 'cleave' and 'napply are not new to stack languages.
spread appears to be new to stack languages.
So I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that (section 2.1):
We introduce two original contributions: a set of combinators which
replace the stack shuffling words found in other stack languages,
and a syntax for partial application.
That bit of text raises another point; section 2.1.6 says:
We propose a syntax for the construction of point-free
closures in a stack-based language.
As you also know, this (fry) was in fact originally designed,
implemented and proposed by me. Check the git logs around Jan-Mar 2008.
Slava immediately took to liking this and implemented a much more
efficient implementation. It's also a stretch to claim that "we propose"
when the authors list doesn't include my name.
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
