Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: EXIT THEN
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:02:36 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <20170119200236.6354406f@_>
References: <o5jrct$1r41$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20170118080251.08615130@_> <1d1339lle659d$.1o5q92umqydzl$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:54190

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:45:37 +0100
Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> wrote:

> Op Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:02:51 -0500 schreef Rod Pemberton:
> <snip>

> > For threaded code, migrating to END would conserve some memory,
> > which might be useful for an embedded environment.  But, defining
> > END and using it instead of EXIT THEN would also slow down the
> > address interpreter.  
> 
> Both methods compile the runtime of EXIT and resolve THEN.
> In threaded code it's the same produced code. That goes for native
> code as well. What do you mean with slowing down the address
> interpreter? If you mean NEXT there is no difference whatsoever.

Sorry, that was my mistake.

For some reason, I was thinking he had posted this when I replied:

: END EXIT THEN ;

Never mind,


Rod Pemberton