Sorry Ed. I already submitted the paper before getting your email, but we can add you to the acknowledgments, as well as more references to Joy's prior work, in the final version of the paper if it gets accepted to the conference. If this is accepted, it will still be the first published work on the general version of these combinators, so we thought it would be worth mentioning them. Factor is the work of many people, not all of which are coauthors of the paper, and we don't claim otherwise, though probably we should have included acknowledgments (which might also mention Doug Coleman and Chris Double as important contributors, as well as you). I didn't invite you to be a coauthor because you're no longer active in the project, and I assumed you wouldn't be interested.
Dan On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Eduardo Cavazos <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
