Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #11630
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF" |
| Date | 2012-04-25 15:29 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <jn9ja7$f1s$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <4f958ae9$0$7610$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <jn82vk$h2d$1@speranza.aioe.org> <Evqdnco6j4dqIwrSnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
"Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message news:Evqdnco6j4dqIwrSnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@supernews.com... > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: ... > > Later on, they merged > > COMPILE and [COMPILE] into state-aware POSTPONE . > > POSTPONE isn't state-aware. > It's true that POSTPONE is not explicitly aware of STATE. But, it is state-aware. It's aware of words marked IMMEDIATE. IMMEDIATE is used to change the behavior of words when used with other words that change STATE. POSTPONE has to be aware of which words are IMMEDIATE in order to change the way they are compiled for when those compiled words are used in STATE-aware situations. If POSTPONE wasn't state-aware, as you've stated, it wouldn't have to check for immediacy at all. I.e., COMPILE and [COMPILE] aren't state-aware. > > I saw an old discussion in c.l.f. that claimed "POSTPONE TO" is not > > valid for ANS Forth. > > 'sright. Why? I don't see why not. It works for my ITC Forth ... Why is TO any different when used with POSTPONE than other words? Rod Pemberton
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