Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #11560
| Date | 2012-04-23 22:06 -1000 |
|---|---|
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
| Organization | FORTH, Inc. |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" |
| References | <4f958ae9$0$7610$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <2012Apr23.191803@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <4f9597ab$0$7626$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <05d015a8-9b02-41cb-96e3-65475bbec6a6@z17g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <4f964099$0$6561$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> |
| Message-ID | <Ha2dnYFmardjwwvSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink) |
On 4/23/12 7:57 PM, A. K. wrote: > On 23.04.2012 23:42, BruceMcF wrote: >> Another implementation approach would be a compilation-only dictionary >> entry that is only found during compilation. Then you'd just define >> the two parts separately, defining the interpret mode version first: >> >> : IS '>is ! ; >> : IS compile (is) ; IMMEDIATE COMPILE-ONLY > > Pardon me, but this is "ugly" and feels "unforthy", at least to my > tender me. :-) > There should be a conciser syntax. I don't see anything wrong with STATE @ IF ... for those who insist on doing this sort of thing despite all the good advice based on years of experience: it's rarely a good idea. 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
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