On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Ian Clark<[email protected]> wrote: > This stands the FORTH approach on its head, and I was wrong to dismiss > it althogether. So what you're saying is I need to revisit the idea of > reimplementing J at boot-up time from a tiny kernel of primitives... > not naive ones as in FORTH but very sophisticated ones like ;: and > ^_1.
At some point you will have to issue machine instructions of some sort. Otherwise, you will still be using the machine instructions generated in the current C implementation of J. That said, I imagine the ;: dyad would be an important part of any J implementation. (They monad is being a fixed left argument to the dyad.) -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
