Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: The meaning of xt in Forth-94
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:08:15 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <op.x0ren1ibyfako5@localhost>
References: <2e398151-3bb9-4827-8b25-2065117703f1@googlegroups.com> <c08d2b8a-4ed2-4763-afb4-4dcbb8aaf1ad@googlegroups.com> <2015Jun17.123449@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <e9151d2a-2583-433f-a8f2-1ae08031d019@googlegroups.com> <a4671561-d16a-483e-8c0f-925fda7ab936@googlegroups.com> <2015Jun19.140757@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <55840e9b.78522916@news.eternal-september.org> <2015Jun20.173600@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <5586cdf5.258583762@news.eternal-september.org> <2015Jun22.104712@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <558811d4.341494581@news.eternal-september.org> <de9a7e09-91db-42ee-ab51-20242f9d33bd@googlegroups.com> <5--dnXkktt6TkhTInZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@supernews.com> <9bcc663b-1ac7-4bbf-8731-1f6e0e40f37c@googlegroups.com> <15782669-963a-457f-957a-ac045492d54b@googlegroups.com> <op.x0peo1aayfako5@localhost> <f0efa226-3694-4055-89dd-28703d036cf4@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; 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:40041

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 05:08:07 -0400, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 23:13:28 UTC+1, Rod Pemberton  wrote:

>> You're indicating possible
>> multiple XTs, which could be done too.
>
> Yes. That's what I'm advocating. But those XTs would actually
> be the XTs of other words defined in the dictionary. By doing
> this:
>
> * Factoring of different semantics into different words is
>   enforced;
> * Each word has exactly one XT and one XT only.
>
> Simple.
>

This is sort of like the sub-words issue, e.g.,
(DO) to implement compile behavior for DO ,
(LOOP) for LOOP , (FIND) for FIND etc.


> Here's an example: S"
>

Ok.

You suggested an implementation.  Now, I'm not a "Forth guy",
but I'd think that another word, similar to CREATE or :NONAME ,
which provides extra dictionary fields for multiple XTs, one
for each mode, would be needed or useful.  E.g., perhaps
CREATEXTS (create-xt-s).  You would also probably need a flag
on the word to indicate that it has multiple XTs, e.g., like
IMMEDIATE sets a flag in the classic implementation, so that
the word is handled properly.


Rod Pemberton
-- 
It's time to put an end to gun violence!
Use a hammer ...