NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME

From	Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME
Organization	nocrew
Date	2016-02-11 10:01 +0100
Message-ID	<8660xvzkm2.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

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?

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

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