Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: CASE mis-understanding?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:39:47 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <op.w97qklv05zc71u@localhost>
References: <a838d0b9-dc5c-4852-8bf5-9e7ad2918de0@googlegroups.com> <57ff7d0f-183a-446b-adda-6ae76a184849@googlegroups.com> <lbu3mu$esd$1@dont-email.me> <1b67b227-ea40-46c0-86c3-52d7338931a7@googlegroups.com> <Kdmdnb1OPNi1I3_PnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@supernews.com> <lbuinh$ipt$1@dont-email.me> <L_adnVTdg5wXSn_PnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:28078

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:13:46 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather  
<erather@forth.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/14 10:34 AM, Gerry Jackson wrote:
>> On 24/01/2014 19:25, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>>> On 1/24/14 6:54 AM, Mark Wills wrote:

>>>> Good points Gerry. You're quite right. CASE needs to be modified also.
>>>> Regarding nested cases, I would go with a separate definition anyway.
>>>> A matter of different styles, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>> CASEs are already difficult to test. I encourage anyone with any
>>> complexity in an OF ... ENDOF clause to factor it into a separate
>>> definition that can be tested. Nesting CASEs is suicidal.
>>>
>>
>> Possibly but it's legal so a system provider has a responsibility to
>> make sure it works or cop out by documenting the fact that it doesn't.
>>
>
> I believe Rod is making a system for his own use, so he needs to judge  
> whether this is a feature that's worth the extra complexity to him.
>

I am making a Forth system for my own use, so far.  Obviously, my
system is not ready for public release.

But, I'm not sure how I ended up being mentioned in this thread.
Did you mean Mark? Andrew?

I'm reading this thread since I hoped someone might come up with
a simpler way to implement Eakers case.

I have looked at Eaker's case.  A few of the words were simple,
made sense, and could be easily defined in terms of existing
Forth words.  However, one was overly complicated.  IIRC - I
haven't looked at his case in a few years - the complicated word
is the one that recursively links the branches together.


Rod Pemberton