Tiny edits.
Chris Pressey
4 years ago
| 327 | 327 | But it continues to be able to express all the functions we've shown so far. |
| 328 | 328 | |
| 329 | 329 | But what of the built-in functions? It's true that they allow us to |
| 330 | move some information in the redex from the right of the `$` to the left. | |
| 330 | move some information from the right of the `$` in the string to the left. | |
| 331 | 331 | `$ 10`, for example, rewrites to `10 $`. But each of these can only move |
| 332 | 332 | a *bounded* amount of information, and this prevents us from getting to |
| 333 | 333 | arbitrary parts of the string and rewriting them. |
| 340 | 340 | with these restrictions, the language is Turing-complete, due to something |
| 341 | 341 | I've missed. |
| 342 | 342 | |
| 343 | So, I'll hedge a bit, and describe the feature that will be added in the | |
| 343 | So, I'll hedge a bit, and I'll describe the feature that will be added in the | |
| 344 | 344 | next section like so: it makes Wanda Turing-complete, even if the language |
| 345 | 345 | we've described so far already is. |
| 346 | 346 | |
| 419 | 419 | discouraged me further. |
| 420 | 420 | |
| 421 | 421 | But Enchilada is really not all that similar to Wanda, and the idea and |
| 422 | the desire to turn it into a real (toy) language never really went away. | |
| 422 | the desire to turn Wanda into a real (toy) language never really went away. | |
| 423 | 423 | So here we are. |
| 424 | 424 | |
| 425 | 425 | Further Work |
| 438 | 438 | possibly retracting existing rules too, but this seems less exciting.) |
| 439 | 439 | But I haven't worked out a way to do this yet that I really like. |
| 440 | 440 | |
| 441 | Happy nonconcatenativeing, | |
| 441 | Happy nonconcatenativeing! | |
| 442 | 442 | Chris Pressey |
| 443 | 443 | London, England |
| 444 | 444 | Feb 27, 2019 |