Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #21377

Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful

Show all headers | View raw

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>  In any case, the definition of DEFERS can be fixed, as we probably
>>>want to entitle people to ' special-compilation semantics, and then do
>>>what they like with it.
>> 
>> So you propose changing COMPILE, in a way that will break existing
>> programs (like DEFERS).  Maybe you should move to the GCC team.
>
>No, there's a constructed possibility that it changes the semantics of 
>existing programs, which is very unlikely, because assigning a special-
>compilation semantics word to a DEFERred word already results in a program 
>that will not do what the user expects.

I would not be so sure about what the users expect.  They may surprise
us.  And you think so, too, because whenever I call your "this does
not happen" bluff by suggesting that we enforce the restriction, you
fold.

>In any case, DEFERS has been fixed, 
>and now uses ]] LITERAL EXECUTE [[ instead of COMPILE,.  That's a tiny bit 
>slower than before.

But that's just one place that need to be "fixed" if "COMPILE," is
changed as you propose.  There are many programs where "COMPILE," is
used, and they would all have to be checked, and many would have to be
"fixed".  And to add insult to injury, the result would be bigger and
slower.

>Are you grumpy, because I removed your solution to state-smart words from 
>the system?  I didn't like it from the beginning, and I was quite grumpy 
>when you introduced it, if you remember it.

Yes, you removed my solution after about two months and replaced it
with your solution.  Why should I be grumpy about that now, 17 years
later?

While some posters here are notorious for insinuating that others have
secret agenda for their opinions, don't think that leads to productive
discussions, so let's not adopt that style.

I have already stated what's behind my position: I consider the
relative between EXECUTE and "COMPILE," to be an important feature
that has to be preserved.  Changing implementation approaches is fine,
changing what "COMPILE," does is not.

>It didn't solve my problems, 
>which is mostly stuff in the BerndOOF code - state-smart CREATE DOES> words.

Please explain the problem in more detail (and in a way that even I
can follow).  Isn't this about overloading resolution?  Wouldn't
preludes work better?

>It did solve the problem of a few words, like TO, S" and IS.

The longer this discussion goes, the more I think that we should do
with as few combined words as possible, and phase the few out as soon
as possible.  But if they are here to stay, and gain wider usage, it's
all the more important that they work correctly with "COMPILE,".

>I'm 
>implementing this, because my need isn't satisfied by your solution - 
>neither was MPE's need, which is why they implemented that smart COMPILE, 15 
>years ago.

What is MPE's need that makes their COMPILE, necessary?

My impression is that it is an implementation choice, like the source
inliner used to be, and that their code would work fine with a correct
COMPILE, (with some other adjustments in the text interpreter).  Also,
my impression is that their current header structure and their
COMPILE, are significantly younger than VFX and were introduced with
the newer inliner.

>As a result, it might break some of your code, but not having it 
>makes MPE's code impossible.  Go try and test it, and report the problems so 
>that we can find solutions.

What "MPE's code"?

>The new systems solves a lot of other problems, including problems I had 
>with the recognizer - e.g. how to execute >R in the interpreter.  As the old 
>monotoken couldn't be executed (the nt), this required some stunt that 
>wasn't working reliable.  To make the recognizers work fully featured 
>(including stuff like interpreted >R, which is a Gforth feature and removing 
>it is not an option) it requires to have an executable monotoken.
>
>So if we fall back to your solution, we have not only to take out the smart 
>COMPILE,, but also the recognizers, or at least the interpreter >R R>, which 
>is also very useful, because you can interactively try code that is using 
>the return stack, as long as it fits into one line.

Ok, the interpreted >R R> is an interesting point.  But since
"COMPILE," does not come into play when interpreting >R R>, why do you
think that changing "COMPILE," is required to support this feature.

- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

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

Thread

Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-20 12:03 +0000
  Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-20 18:47 +0100
    Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-30 16:40 +0000
      Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-01 02:12 +0200
        Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-01 16:58 +0000
          Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-02 04:20 +0200
            Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-04-01 16:39 -1000
            Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-02 14:15 +0000
              Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-02 21:12 +0200
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-04 13:58 +0000
          Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-04-02 04:17 -0500
            Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-02 15:35 +0000
              Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-04-02 16:36 -0500
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-03 04:10 +0200
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-04-03 04:03 -0500
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-03 21:14 +0200
        Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-03 16:13 +0000
          Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-04-03 11:54 -0500
          Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-03 22:24 +0200
            Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-04-04 11:53 +0000
              Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-04 18:13 +0200
            Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-04 15:53 +0000
              Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-04 22:11 +0200
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-04-04 21:35 +0100
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-04 23:06 +0200
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-04-05 10:57 +0000
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-05 14:47 +0000
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-05 14:28 +0000
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-06 03:35 +0200
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-04-08 23:50 -0400
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-04-08 23:49 -0400
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2013-04-05 02:49 -0700
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-04-05 14:55 +0000
                Re: Difficulty with Brad Rodriguez' screenful Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-04-05 22:05 +0200

csiph-web