Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "HAA" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: EXIT THEN Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:08:44 +1100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: k9QtDlZmp/7Pi5sR4HMHsQ.user.gioia.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Priority: 3 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:54817 hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > ... > The same thing is true of ?EXIT --- making this a primitive is going to be result in > much faster code than IF EXIT THEN would --- this is why those old Forth systems had > ?EXIT despite the fact that it isn't used very much. Or expected to be used more often. Brodie & Moore comment on this in Thinking Forth. The problem, they argue, with redefining common sequences as a word is that you must recall the name and what it does. Easier just to remember the sequence as performing a useful function. Brodie refers to these as a 'cliches'. Interestingly systems which have ?NEGATE BOUNDS BUFFER: BOUNDS etc. it's often possible to find instances where the system programmer himself had forgotten and reverted to the long form!