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: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:37:47 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <52e54d17.461102185@news.demon.co.uk> <2014Feb17.150541@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Feb18.103428@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Feb18.151937@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xppmks7v9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2014Feb18.181426@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xmwhoi4px.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2014Feb20.180722@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xa9dls56m.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <53072856.716237921@news.demon.co.uk> 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:28687 On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:18:12 -0500, wrote: > On Friday, February 21, 2014 3:34:43 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >> In Forth culture, Forth is known to be dangerous - modify the >> return stack at your own risk. There is also some understanding >> that return stack manipulation is not that unusual. Hence the >> compiler writers are cautious. > > In my [Forth] language But, there's not a single reply from you in the "Forth reinvention" thread ... > In my language I will not have >R R> R@ etc. --- I will just provide > local variables. > > The only thing that >R etc. can do, that locals can't do, is work with > variable numbers of parameters on the data-stack (usually with a > sentinel underneath them) [...] > I think that implementing structured coding in Forth is a noble attempt. Unfortunately, as you should know, there are two ways that >R R> R@ are used in Forth. The first and most common is to temporarily store a single data item. I.e., you may need an extra user variable to allow storage of temporary data items. The other is to store and retrieve multiple data items. That usage is less common but may be harder to eliminate. But, maybe the Forth locals are sufficient for that, or they may just be more overhead. I would suspect that locals and at least one temporary would be more useful than just locals. > My language is going to be a lot simpler than ANS-Forth. I can get rid > of all return-stack stuff, including DO loops. You need at least one loop control-flow construct. If it's an infinite loop, you'll need a method to escape it, e.g., UNLOOP or EXIT etc. > I throw away a lot, and only add a few key features --- ... > [...] quotations are the major addition (and I mean quotations that have > access to the creator function's local variables, [...] Visionary -or- Worthless? ... > ANS-Forth is a weird combination of over-complexity and > lack-of-features. My language will be a lot simpler, which will make the > compiler-writer's life easier, and it will have useful features, which > will make the application-programmer's life easier. I'm curious. Do you compare your current pronouncements to prior pronouncements? Do you write these pronouncements down to compare your progress and results to them? Is expressing such ideas to us part of your mental process of visualization and realization? Or, are you attempting to build momentum from the group for your visions of Forth? Or, are you attempting to prepare us for a Forth you've already written when it is unleashed into the world and overcomes it? In many ways, your pronouncements like Gavino's random thought dumps ... Rod Pemberton