Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail
From: Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: NAME! and NAME@ versus !NAME and @NAME
Organization: nocrew
References: <8660xvzkm2.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> <3a23ff9d-83b9-4885-8fa3-dc10cf42141b@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:10:51 +0100
Message-ID: <86vb5vy01w.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JmSr3+MwsNRYxMbKxvEv+8HqtO8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 21
NNTP-Posting-Host: 178.18.91.250
X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk DXC=RiO`GMeHSRab>:U6jKdTQlYSB=nbEKnkkgeDVL6j]a7cnY:6X7^ZBNgI57e>YZ9SOk1HBfORCSCccD5J_h8H;EFc`jOXUD]_HXb
X-Complaints-To: staff@sunsite.dk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:45444

lehs wrote:
> Can there be a standard about this?

May be not.  It's not very important, but I was curious because
obviously Leo Brodie cared enough to put it in words and print it in a
book.

> I use @ as a prefix to words that acts on addresses, in the sense
> "fetch and act", i.e:
>
> @split \ ad -- 
>
> that splits the list at the top of a stack allocated at ad, into
> "tail" and "head" on that stack. While the word
>
> xst@ \ -- n
>
> read the value (without pop the stack) of the xst-stack.

I'm not sure (or I wouldn't have started this thread), but isn't this
the exact opposite of Leo Brodie's conventions?