From wtanksle@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Mon May 31 10:35:22 1999 X-Digest-Num: 154 Message-ID: <44114.154.917.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 10:35:22 -0700 From: William Tanksley From: dex@SYSLINK.MCS.COM > > I'm a Forth fanatic, actually -- but in order to make a Lojbanic > > Forth we'd have to invent a pretty serious dialect of Lojban to > > handle the stack. It would be pretty cool, I admit, but I don't > > have the skill. > > I suggested Rebol because it has most of the features of Forth, > > but it also has and uses a parser. > I've been out of touch for a long time (and haven't gotten the > FIG newsletter since the 1980s), but hasn't anybody written a > Forth parser? Maybe somebody at FIG would know. Forth, by its nature (and as its advantage), can't be parsed -- it has no syntax. Someone's written an EBNF parser in Forth which works very well and is very Forthish, but anything the parser can parse is no longer Forth, pretty much by definition :-). > Do you have contact info? About all I remember at this point > is the snailing address used to be in California. (So long ago > we weren't even calling it Snail yet). comp.lang.forth is a good place to start; www.forth.com is good, as is www.taygeta.com. What would a Lojban dialect for Forth look like? Well, first of all it would have to be imperitive. 'ko' would be implied in almost every sentance. Relations would come at the end of sentances rather than somewhere in the middle; 'se' and the other position switching words would be used in a very special way. The vocabulary would be very limited, of course. Whew. I can't see it working. I'll have to investigate the Logic Programming world to see what they've got -- I know a little Prolog, and I know that Mercury is more modern, but that's the extent of my knowledge. -- -William "Billy" Tanksley Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! :-: May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!