Hacker News Reader

Could ^a be dispensed with? It looks like (a) is equivalent to it.

Subtly different. Originally I didn’t have ^a, but you do in-fact need it. ^a means “push with no evaluation” and (a) means “build a closure” that computes a”.

If you push, pop, push, pop, push repeatedly you’ll be wrapping the value in lots of closures. The value is no longer a value too. You’d have to “force” it to get back the value.

Semantically quite different. If you’re going all Turing tarpit, could you survive without “^a”? Maybe. But you’d be suffering for sure.

Operationally, you don't have to do the wrapping: since (a) is equivalent to ^a, you can substitute the implementation of the latter when you see the former.

Though if `(a)` is observably "no longer a value" of course then that's an issue. Which may or may not be a problem :-)

I thought of that. But then you’re making the semantics complicated. Say you really did want a (a) closure. Now you can’t have one, and you have to resort to more tricky wrapping. Not worth it.

I think the equivalent would be ('a) instead as (a) would resolve to "'result of application of a' push".

The page says that "`(foo bar) force` is the same computation as `foo bar`" and that "`^a force` is the same computation as `a`". So then `(a) force` should be the same computation as `^a force`.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com