Content deleted Content added
John Nowak (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 23:
==Incomprehensible==
I'm university level CompSci engineer, but don't understand this article because the terms are not back-referenced. For example "terms" is meaningless without either back-referencing the term "term" to one other programming or mathematical paradigm, such as logic programming or imperative. The article just seems to mumble its mind without any listeners. I think it is not understandable to anyone except anyone that already knows all about the topic. The terms must be better founded into a context. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80"><sup>m</sup><u>bork<sup>3</sup></u></span>]]!) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
: I've attempted to clarify things somewhat by explaining concatenative languages as the subset of point-free languages in which concatenation of expressions (which should be clearer than "terms") denotes function composition. If you do not think this improves things sufficiently, please re-instate the technical notice. [[User:John Nowak|John Nowak]] ([[User talk:John Nowak|talk]]) 03:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||