Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth16e, Forth32e, "de facto" forth programming standards for embedded
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:25:29 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <op.xjd4crf16zenlw@localhost>
References: <49aa991d-41c6-44ae-afe4-ad1b7434011b@googlegroups.com> <b2665081-48ec-4c99-951e-e82e1558e340@googlegroups.com> <9f8a7188-7ef0-4ae4-8341-e27a41f9a44b@googlegroups.com> <836283a2-64a1-4811-b653-13a099fbbb46@googlegroups.com> <S_ydnYAIfaAbElrOnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@supernews.com> <0ade3c7c-d1c0-41f5-8f5e-055d66aaff6b@googlegroups.com> <53c928c6.819888433@news.demon.co.uk> <lqc7im$c5l$1@online.de> <7xmwc69rdv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <lqcb9s$iou$1@online.de> <7xegxi9pzi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7edd6024-75fc-4c09-a7a9-892cd8b2c176@googlegroups.com> <op.xi9v2zi26zenlw@localhost> <0cedfdec-1922-4cc3-a339-2c5b292eb485@googlegroups.com> <ae27569e-5998-431e-b60e-ebb5ed9ad254@googlegroups.com> <26e2e926-3fd3-46a9-8876-42f1570795b6@googlegroups.com> <W5qdnTDWFe5kJ1HOnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@supernews.com> <75a32142-6f65-4518-aa9d-3068bedd8899@googlegroups.com> <op.xjd2lh0n6zenlw@localhost> <9f1f90ed-adf3-4fa8-8702-4f5984fc69b5@googlegroups.com>
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:32540

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:06:23 -0400, Raimond Dragomir  
<raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote

>> Most high-level languages have counter based loops.
>>
>> What do you suggest instead?  I.e., it still needs a
>> counter, and needs to work with ANS, Forth 83,
>> fig-Forth, etc.
>>
> C doen't have a real counting loop. FOR is just sintactic sugar for a  
> while() loop. You can do almost whatever you like with FORs, for example  
> doing for(;;) loops instead of while(1) loops, or using any kind of  
> expression inside...

While true, that misses the point.

By removing DO LOOP ?DO +LOOP , Hugh removes the syntactic "sugar"
 from Forth just like removing for() from C.  You'd need to use
BEGIN AGAIN UNTIL in Forth or while() or do-while() in C with
counters.  This can be done but it's more work.  I'd expect that
most coding in Forth would want looping words that work with counters.


Rod Pemberton