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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #53722

Re: A formal name?

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 22:05:26 -1000
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote:

> On 1/2/17 7:13 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 18:11:38 -0800 (PST)
> > foxaudioresearch@gmail.com wrote:

> >> I have been scratching my head for a name for the code words that
> >> reside in the code field of a threaded Forth system.
> >>
> >> They are typically called DOCOL, DOCON, DOVAR etc... and we know
> >> they reside in the code field address, but is there a name for
> >> these words as group.  
> >
> > Also, DODOES, DOUSER, and perhaps DOLIT.
> >
> > Did you mean something like "defining words" or "primitives" or
> > "low-level words" or "code words" ?
> >
> > Did you mean something like "level 0" (fig-Forth) or
> > "nucleus" (Forth-79 and Forth-83) or "core" (DPANS94)?
> >
> > Did you mean something like an XT?
> >
> > Did you mean something like ;CODE or (;CODE) ?  
> 
> They are not always separate definitions, especially in optimizing 
> compilers. The generic term for the code in question is "the run-time 
> code for [xxx]".
> 

So, it seems that there is a subtle distinction between "primitives"
and either "run-time code for [xxx]" or "run-time routines for
non-primitives".  It seems that "primitives" are only single-use
run-time code, while the "doers", or "generic actions", can be used
repeatedly.  Is that correct?

If so, that's an interesting distinction.  I've been referring to both
as "primitives".  The "doers", while they are *used* multiple times in
my low-level code (17 DOVAR, 7 DOCON, 11 DOCOL as ENTER), their
run-time routines are *implemented* as code only once, just like the
code for primitives with single-use run-time code, e.g., DUP DROP ADD
SUB, etc.


Rod Pemberton

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

Thread

A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:11 -0800
  Re: A formal name? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-03 00:13 -0500
    Re: A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 21:58 -0800
    Re: A formal name? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-02 22:05 -1000
      Re: A formal name? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-03 20:25 -0500
        Re: A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 17:10 -0800
          Re: A formal name? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-04 16:20 -1000
        Re: A formal name? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-05 08:20 +0000
  Re: A formal name? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 21:58 -0800
  Re: A formal name? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-03 12:17 +0000
    Re: A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-03 08:16 -0800

csiph-web