Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF"

Date	2012-04-24 21:01 -1000
From	"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com>
Organization	FORTH, Inc.
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF"
References	(4 earlier) <4f96e517$0$7626$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <e74c3c1c-e03b-419f-9207-d4f55a42c3fa@h9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <4f9708b7$0$6547$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <Heudncysh8WioArSnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@supernews.com> <4f97844e$0$7616$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Message-ID	<0N-dnZ6VFJr5PArSnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/24/12 6:58 PM, A. K. wrote:
> On 25.04.2012 01:54, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> On 4/24/12 10:10 AM, A. K. wrote:
>>> On 24.04.2012 20:25, BruceMcF wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3.4.2 does not specify whether a dual-xt word *will* find the
>>>> interpretation or compilation semantics when compiling, but the
>>>> definition of FIND specifies that a different xt *may be* return in
>>>> interpretation and compilation state, which implies that the execution
>>>> semantics *may be* different in the two states.
>>>>
>>>> Since IMMEDIATE simply says it has the word perform the execution
>>>> semantics in compilation state, and the dual-xt system *does* perform
>>>> the compilation state execution semantics in compilation state, the
>>>> IMMEDIATE would be redundant but respected nonetheless.
>>>
>>> It seems that with those many "maybe"s we are ending again at the
>>> classical fringe of a so-called standard that it is
>>> "implementation-dependent". ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Well, obviously, since how you implement a dictionary and immediacy is
>> inherently implementation-dependent, and deliberately so. The point
>> everyone is trying to make is that the use of the word IMMEDIATE in that
>> definition is meaningless, given the very explicit description of
>> IMMEDIATE in the standard.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elizabeth
>>
>
> Sure, it's nothing that shakes the world. But whether it can shake an
> application depends on the application -- and different Forths behave
> differently here, each of them claiming to be standard Forths. I
> wouldn't call it meaningless.

Who called it meaningless?  Not me!  Folks who standardize a language 
can choose whether to mandate implementation details or not.  Forth83 
did; Forth94 and Forth 200x do not. There are pros and cons to such a 
decision.

If you mandate implementation details, you improve portability at the 
cost of limiting the ability of implementers to innovate. Forth83 could 
not run on 32-bit hardware efficiently. It couldn't allow 
compile-to-code or optimized code implementations. Forth94 allowed all 
those things. It then explicitly called out implementation-dependent and 
implementation-specified features (which differ in the amount of 
documentation required). Programmers who choose to write application 
code that is implementation-dependent can do so knowingly, and if they 
wish to be portable to different implementations they know exactly what 
features need to be dealt with explicitly in a "compatibility layer".

I would say it's not only far from meaningless, it's important.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-23 19:01 +0200
  Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-23 17:18 +0000
    Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-23 19:56 +0200
      Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-23 20:20 +0200
      Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-23 14:42 -0700
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-24 07:57 +0200
          Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-23 22:06 -1000
            Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-26 08:42 +0200
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-26 03:55 -0500
          Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-24 07:55 -0700
          Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-24 08:00 -0700
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-25 14:32 +0200
      Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-24 10:26 +0000
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-24 19:38 +0200
          Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-24 11:25 -0700
            Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-24 22:10 +0200
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-24 16:02 -0700
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-24 13:54 -1000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-25 06:58 +0200
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-24 21:01 -1000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-24 21:40 -1000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-25 05:56 -0700
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-24 12:11 -0700
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-04-24 22:40 +0200
          Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-25 13:03 +0000
            Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-25 08:37 -0700
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-26 16:17 +0000
  Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-25 01:44 -0400
    Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-25 08:33 +0200
      Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-25 04:09 -0500
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-25 13:15 +0000
          Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-25 10:52 -0500
            Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-25 17:50 +0000
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-26 04:06 -0500
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-27 11:37 +0000
            Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-25 15:28 -0400
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-25 10:02 -1000
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 01:30 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-04-26 16:48 +0200
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-26 09:27 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-26 16:42 -0400
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-04-27 00:46 +0200
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-27 05:32 -0400
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-27 05:35 -0500
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 04:00 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-27 20:38 -0400
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-28 03:02 +0200
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 18:12 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 12:45 +0000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 07:56 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 16:17 +0000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-05-02 15:51 -0400
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-05-02 13:15 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-02 12:59 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-05-02 13:54 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-05-02 14:25 -0700
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 01:43 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 02:18 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-04-26 16:54 +0200
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-26 10:46 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:21 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-26 18:31 -0400
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-26 14:32 -1000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 01:50 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-27 09:10 +0000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-27 09:47 -1000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-27 05:33 -0400
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-27 15:06 -0400
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-27 02:54 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-27 11:30 +0000
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-26 12:18 -0700
                Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-04-26 22:21 +0200
              Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-26 04:27 -0500
    Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-25 04:08 -0500
      Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-25 15:29 -0400
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-25 10:27 -1000
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-26 04:31 -0500
        Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-26 16:35 +0000
          Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-27 11:58 +0000

csiph-web