Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: CASE mis-understanding? Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:37:11 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <2014Jan27.145730@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <52e7b833$0$24947$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> <52e7c363$0$24916$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> <66e2b3ae-f7c4-494a-bf1b-0a710763d8f2@googlegroups.com> <2b99e79c-6aef-402c-8667-322d3f24509e@googlegroups.com> <6bced7b9-403d-489d-bb7e-92b481249d1b@googlegroups.com> <1193tk4cxc2yq.1382doevi4pif.dlg@40tude.net> <49ef5d79-6888-4918-bdbf-3b0f0641fff9@googlegroups.com> <7a1bded8-8d24-4ea1-acf2-afaf912181a3@googlegroups.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:28418 On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 02:40:25 -0500, wrote: > [...] --- I want control-flow stuff on the control-flow stack where > it doesn't conflict with the user's data on the data-stack If the control-flow stuff is on the return-stack, "it doesn't conflict with the user's data on the data-stack." I only bring that up because of the following: > --- this is why the ANS-Forth TC introduced the concept of a > "control-flow stack" rather than just have a data-stack as in Forth-83, > but then they undermined themselves by allowing the control-flow stack > to be the data-stack (and the only possible explanation for why they did > this was to allow SwiftForth to be ANS-Forth compliant without needing > to be upgraded). ISTM, that the ANS concept of a "control-flow stack" was to allow for it's placement where best suited for any particular Forth. I.e., you could have a control-flow stack, return stack, data stack, all separate. Or, it could be placed on one them. The concept seems to even allow for the control-flow stack be eliminated for STC or compiled Forth. I.e., it's an attempt to allow for adapting Forth to a variety of implementations, or to abstract Forth from the underlying architecture. I won't get into the negatives of doing so. Both were done to C with negative results. Of course, the opposite was done with Forth, which many here still rile against. Rod Pemberton