Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: minforth <minforth@gmx.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: 0 vs. translate-none
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2025 13:56:04 +0200
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <mja7ekFbiv5U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <2025Sep17.185305@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20250919193929.00000ec0@tin.it> <2025Sep20.092554@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20250920103435.00002fbe@tin.it> <nnd$63a1c2c3$53407578@cf3fecc44161b6ef>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net wdOV0OzDZFmPHxQj/ro9VwcL5WJOyMqC7KHMrblFSrDYBI/Q89
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U2sXfLkkrlcRC2W4shhtPgi6Q0M= sha256:qNOpTAZfLjlDwAoRyE8yiGNfzZ96nFEquZp27oIlYPk=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <nnd$63a1c2c3$53407578@cf3fecc44161b6ef>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:134179

Am 21.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl:
<snip>
> All this is accomplised by a PREFIX flag (compare IMMEDIATE)
> and a provision that advances the interpreter pointer by
> the length of the prefixes, not by the length of the word passed
> to it.
> 
> It is believable that the system presented above is more powerful,
> but I love to see examples what it can do that warrant the
> complexity. Also I love to see if the examples can't be
> done with my simpler setup.
> Recently I presented the Roman number prefix. How does
> that look in the recognizer presented.

FWIW I also use suffixes for recognizers:
let M be a matrix
M´  auto-transposed
M~  auto-inverted