Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Cecil Bayona Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Really? Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:20:48 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <1239a88b-a574-401b-9454-50ac7e000049@googlegroups.com> <589c77b9.95886950@news.eternal-september.org> <2017Feb11.161604@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:18:56 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c80e2234f31d22bb567767172ecf24ef"; logging-data="22418"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+EwV8gQR2SyJHjusF8T744" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 In-Reply-To: <2017Feb11.161604@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Cancel-Lock: sha1:KaR6qW2zNVhTq1PinqfeU1OBonU= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:54793 On 2/11/2017 9:16 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > Alex writes: >> Perhaps that needs to be in the standard. If we can parse moustachieod >> locals, surely we can formally parse stack comments. > > We can restrict stack descriptions such that they can be parsed and, > to some extent, understood by the compiler. E.g., see the use of > stack effect descriptions in vmgen: > > > The question is if we are prepared to limit Forth to the things that a > specific stack effect syntax would limit us to, and if we are prepared > to write our stack effect descriptions in the way required by the > syntax. > > And if we are, then there is still the stony path towards > standardization before us: Some people want it for one purpose, others > for other purposes, and of course, someone will point out > not-yet-invented purposes that we need to prepare for ... > > - anton > Bad link; < https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/vmgen/html-docs/Simple-instructions.html > -- Cecil - k5nwa