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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #45296

Re: SYNONYM question

From anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: SYNONYM question
Date 2016-02-04 10:54 +0000
Organization Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID <2016Feb4.115447@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink)
References <n8ssmo$aaa$1@dont-email.me> <2016Feb3.161644@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <n8tgik$thq$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>On 03/02/2016 15:16, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> If these uses of SYNONYM are ambiguous conditions then it makes SYNONYM
>>> less useful than it could be.
>>
>> Yes, SYNONYM would be more useful if it would copy all the semantics
>> of a word.  That leads to the question: Should it give the same xt?
>> The same nt?  In the latter case, NAME>STRING would give the name of
>> the old word, not net name of the synonym.
>>
>> Is there somebody willing to make a proposal on that?  And will we
>> find consensus?
>
>A proposal on what exactly. The options seem to be:
>- all the original words semantics are copied to the synonym (that's 
>already implied in the specification of SYNONYM isn't it?)

What the specification specifies is that interpretation and
compilation semantics are copied, nothing else.

>- TO and IS work with synonyms of VALUEs and deferred words

Another interesting case is DOES>.  Does applying DOES> to the synonym
of a CREATEd word affect the original or not?

Applying IMMEDIATE to newword is already explicitly ambiguous.

>- ticking a synonym returns the same xt as for the original word

I see no protests against that yet.

>- obtaining the nt of a synonym shoulds give the same nt as the 
>original.

That seems to be controversial.  So either require a different nt, or
allow both implementations.

>IIRC the only standard way to obtain an nt is using 
>TRAVERSE-WORDLIST and providing a word that does a string comparison, in 
>which case the nt's are likely to be different?

If they are the same, newword will just not be found with that method.
A consequence of such an implementation would be that a WORDS defined
using TRAVERSE-WORDLIST would have the following effect; given the
program

vocabulary w also w definitions
create foo
synonym bar foo
words

the output would be "foo foo".  I guess that's not desired, so I think
we should require a different nt.

- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

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

Thread

SYNONYM question Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 12:47 +0000
  Re: SYNONYM question Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 05:36 -0800
    Re: SYNONYM question stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-02-03 15:36 +0000
      Re: SYNONYM question Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 17:26 +0000
        Re: SYNONYM question Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-02-27 00:07 +0000
        Re: SYNONYM question hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 18:44 -0800
      Re: SYNONYM question Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 02:17 -0800
        Re: SYNONYM question Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-04 11:32 +0000
          Re: SYNONYM question stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-02-04 17:12 +0000
      Re: SYNONYM question hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-02-08 22:03 -0800
        Re: SYNONYM question Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-03-03 00:09 +0000
          Re: SYNONYM question hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-03-02 22:02 -0800
  Re: SYNONYM question anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-03 15:16 +0000
    Re: SYNONYM question Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 18:26 +0000
      Re: SYNONYM question Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-03 20:09 +0000
        Re: SYNONYM question Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-02-03 20:52 +0000
          Re: SYNONYM question "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-02-03 15:59 -1000
          Re: SYNONYM question Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-04 11:25 +0000
      Re: SYNONYM question Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-02-04 02:16 -0800
        Re: SYNONYM question anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-04 11:18 +0000
      Re: SYNONYM question anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-04 10:54 +0000
        Re: SYNONYM question "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-02-04 23:35 +1100
  Re: SYNONYM question Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-02-03 19:48 +0000
    Re: SYNONYM question "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-02-04 11:07 +1100
    Re: SYNONYM question anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-02-04 11:08 +0000

csiph-web