Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail
X-Newsreader: iForth 2.0 console (October 21, 2006)
From: mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix)
Subject: Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Message-ID: <89719209938433@frunobulax.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:32:14 +0200
References: <8tydnedGaJWeIdHJnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@supernews.com>
Lines: 21
Organization: SunSITE.dk - Supporting Open source
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.157.147.127
X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk DXC=lmBZJGnABEkPEW:6ooR3ldYSB=nbEKnkk^fF\f1M=kefAFQDNO0X`Fb05[\_Lj_;Yi6D3KhK?DWDmh\=Q[N9OHXo
X-Complaints-To: staff@sunsite.dk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:34155

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals
[.. discussion I want no part in ..]
>> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> N>R and NR> are not necessary, either, and I don't consider them nice
>> to have.  Your reaction: "what's not to like?".

> Indeed, and that was a judgement call.  They are necessary IMO because
> of other parts of standard Forth.  And they are standalone words which
> don't have the (IMO) dramatic effect on the language that locals do.
> (And I really needed them at the time for software transactional
> memory, so I knew for certain that they had uses beyond their initial
> motivation.)
[..]

I am disgusted that N>R and NR> ever got in the standard. Your reason to
back them is not convincing (how many current systems allow transactional 
memory, why do they need a standardized N>R and NR> to provide it, what 
must-have features do N>R and NR> enable in a Standard Forth). 

-marcel