Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: gforth too bloated ? Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 14:08:43 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <4b4ea6f6-3b09-434a-a501-ff31190b9f4a@googlegroups.com> <2014May13.184005@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <47qdnXip89VGwe_OnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@supernews.com> <2014May14.140323@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xha4sl4hf.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2014May15.162231@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014May16.151900@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014May18.152057@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.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:30453 On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:20:57 -0400, Anton Ertl wrote: > However, what you missed is that, however simple you may claim the > reversal is, you got the order in this relatively simple definition > wrong on the first attempt. Not true. I was asking about why a word used to define locals wasn't used. That seemed far more reasonable to me than the braces. You chose a Forth, iForth, which happened to have a word LOCAL which worked similarly to what I was asking about and named the same as what I chose, but has a different ordering from what I posted. That doesn't get to redefine or define the order on what I posted. So, the supposedly incorrect ordering was actually "ex post facto". Admittedly, it's likely true that any LOCAL word I attempted to implement would need to work the opposite way from what I posted, since it would likely be stack based. While it may seem reasonable to you that this ordering for locals is somehow important enough to be implemented a certain way, from my perspective, it's the least important of many other things in Forth which are already backwards. I.e., it seems to make no difference that this one thing is arbitrarily deemed to be correctly ordered when so many other things were simply designed to fit or work. > Reverse polish notation is "x y -" Is that "x - y" or "y - x" ... ? Most stack operators operate against the top-of-stack as the primary data item. Subtraction in Forth is reversed from that. The point is that the order is not clear, and could be perceived as being reversed by some people, even some Forth programmers. I.e., it could be argued that subtraction in Forth should've been implemented as "y - x". So, how is the "reversed" order here any different from LOCAL? Rod Pemberton