Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29020
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| References | <op.xcj1pdntsu5d0p@david> <lfnl3l$7su$1@dont-email.me> <lfnrth$eu0$1@online.de> |
| Message-ID | <kMWdnTPtkvlTtr3OnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2014-03-12 04:41 -0500 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > >> on 11/03/2014 11:18:40, "Peter Knaggs" wrote: >>> The number of available buffers is defined as "At least one". As a >>> number of FILE words require two strings, this would be the right time >>> to change this to "at least two". >> >> Andrew Haley objected that it doesn't follow the zero, one, many model. > > Sure, but sometimes though shalt count to three, neither to two nor > to four, because three is the right number. Or so. The reason for > having two buffers is that RENAME-FILE needs two strings, one is > clearly insufficient, and many are too many. We have other places > were we don't follow this rule, either. We do, but two is so aribtrary that IMO it needs better justification than that's what RENAME-FILE needs. Is it really a common case that you use Forth interactively to rename a file like this? I'll grant you that "two" is better than "one". Andrew.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2014-03-11 11:18 +0000
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-03-11 18:36 +0000
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-11 21:32 +0100
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-03-11 22:38 +0000
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-12 13:02 +0100
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-12 04:41 -0500
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-12 13:16 +0100
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-03-12 04:33 -0700
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-12 12:51 +0100
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-03-12 06:25 -0700
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-03-12 15:59 +0100
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-12 19:43 +0100
Re: RfD: Interpret S\" (Version 2) "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2014-03-13 18:55 +0000
csiph-web