Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #45438
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME |
| Date | 2016-02-11 05:02 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <20160211050207.09f4d18c@_> (permalink) |
| References | <8660xvzkm2.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> |
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:01:25 +0100 Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> wrote: > Leo Brodie's Forth style guide says: > > save value of (to stack) @name > restore value of !name > store into name! > fetch from name@ > > I don't understand when it's appropriate to use @name or !name, and > when to use name@ or name!. > > My research so far: The Standard use the latter a lot: C!, 2! R@, F!, > DEFER@, etc. But the former seems to be rare. I found !CSP and !BITS > in some traditional Forths. Machine Forth use A!/A@ to access the > contents of the A register, and !A/@A to access memory. > > Any insights? Leo Brodie's "Thinking Forth" pg 287 Meaning Form Example ... save value of @name @CURSOR restore value of !name !CURSOR store into name! SECONDS! fetch from name@ INDEX@ ... From that, my guess is that if the source is the data stack and destination is a variable, then the @ and ! come after and vice-versa. I.e., @name and !name are expected to be paired operations and so are name! and name@. a) variable -> data stack -> variable b) data stack -> variable -> data stack Of course, as you can see they are equivalent. It's just a matter of the the expected source. Rod Pemberton
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-11 10:01 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 01:56 -0800
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-11 12:04 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-02-14 09:28 +1100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 21:45 -0800
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-02-11 05:02 -0500
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 02:40 -0800
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-11 12:10 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 03:37 -0800
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-11 13:04 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-11 10:51 +0000
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-11 12:33 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-02-11 13:01 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-11 13:11 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-11 12:15 +0000
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-11 13:35 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 05:06 -0800
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 05:18 -0800
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-11 13:27 +0000
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-02-11 12:35 +0000
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-02-12 16:58 +1100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-02-12 17:41 +1100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-12 08:56 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-02-12 08:13 +0100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-02-13 01:36 +1100
Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-02-12 22:46 +0100
csiph-web