Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF"

From	anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF"
Date	2012-04-25 13:03 +0000
Organization	Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID	<2012Apr25.150321@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink)
References	<4f958ae9$0$7610$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <2012Apr23.191803@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <4f9597ab$0$7626$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <2012Apr24.122633@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <1glef94ciglkx$.gzmjo2kgoj0x.dlg@40tude.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> writes:
>Op Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:26:33 GMT schreef Anton Ertl:
>> Let's see what Gforth does:
>> 
>>:noname cr ." interpretation semantics" ;
>>:noname cr ." compilation semantics" ;
>> interpret/compile: foo \ first without IMMEDIATE
>> foo                    \ prints "interpretation semantics"
>> ] foo [                \ prints "compilation semantics"
>> immediate              \ now with IMMEDIATE
>> foo                    \ prints "interpretation semantics"
>> ] foo [                \ prints "compilation semantics"
>> 
>> So the IMMEDIATE has no effect here.
>> 
>Why would it, interpret/compile: create IMMEDIATE definitions

Hmm, does it?  Let's see what an immediate word is: From 2.1:

|immediate word:
|    A Forth word whose compilation semantics are to perform its
|    execution semantics.

Well, FOO has interpretation semantics and compilation semantics, but
does it have execution semantics?  And if it has them, what are they?

Is there a standard way to get at the execution semantics?  Not
really.  FIND is completely underspecified, and ' might be interpreted
as giving us the execution semantics, but there is no specification of
what happens if there is no execution semantics.

So one might argue that FOO has no execution semantics, and that "'"
and IMMEDIATE are then allowed to do anything.  Of course, one might
also argue that INTERPRET/COMPILE: is not a standard word, so the
standard does not say anything about the program above anyway.

Back to why you say the INTERPRET/COMPILE: creates IMMEDIATE
definitions: These definitions may have the immediate bit set and
IMMEDIATE just sets this bit (so it has no effect on such
definitions), but that's a very implementation-oriented view; it
explains why Gforth behaves the way it does, but does not really throw
any light on the original question.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

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