Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: top 10 words which should *not* be in a Forth dictionary?
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 17:20:49 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <op.xcfccz1b6zenlw@localhost>
References: <op.xblncrex5zc71u@localhost> <c29870fd-af6f-4011-8eba-5d659d656ef7@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:28987

On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 06:27:26 -0500, Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> ROT and -ROT. As descriptive words they suck. Neither of them describe  
> the direction in which they rotate. Every freaking time I need them I  
> need to look them up. Why can't they be called be LROT and RROT.
>

For x86, I can never remember when, before or after, or which direction,
incremented or decremented, the stack pointer is adjusted for PUSH and POP.
So, I use a mnemonic abbreviation, POPIA - POP Increments After.

-ROT pops the 3rd to the top.  That sort of rhymes...  ROT pushes.


Rod Pemberton