Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth16e, Forth32e, "de facto" forth programming standards for embedded Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:23:35 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <49aa991d-41c6-44ae-afe4-ad1b7434011b@googlegroups.com> <9f8a7188-7ef0-4ae4-8341-e27a41f9a44b@googlegroups.com> <836283a2-64a1-4811-b653-13a099fbbb46@googlegroups.com> <0ade3c7c-d1c0-41f5-8f5e-055d66aaff6b@googlegroups.com> <53c928c6.819888433@news.demon.co.uk> <7xmwc69rdv.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xegxi9pzi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7edd6024-75fc-4c09-a7a9-892cd8b2c176@googlegroups.com> <0cedfdec-1922-4cc3-a339-2c5b292eb485@googlegroups.com> <26e2e926-3fd3-46a9-8876-42f1570795b6@googlegroups.com> <75a32142-6f65-4518-aa9d-3068bedd8899@googlegroups.com> <5c5d8042-d51c-4d6a-a830-a5538e7215fe@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:32566 On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:15:28 -0400, wrote: > On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:25:58 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 7/21/14 9:47 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> > Yes, you can use both as an infinite loop that is escaped. >> > You've demonstrated this below for DO. But, why would you >> > use DO for an infinite loop when BEGIN generally has far >> > less overhead? > > BEGIN loops have more overhead when locals aren't used. This is because > the index and the loop are on the parameter stack, getting in the way of > the other data on the parameter stack. This results in a lot of > stack-juggling words, such as ROT or the dreaded ROLL. > > BEGIN loops only have less overhead when locals are used --- but this is > what I'm arguing in favor of! > Is there a reason you replied to Ms. Rather, but responded to both mine and her comments in her post? That's not polite, and confusing. >> > From my experience, DO I and LOOP use a large amount of return >> > stack juggling using two stacked values. > > What the heck is "return stack juggling?" I'm sure you fully understand that interpreted Forths have two stacks. a) the data or parameter stack b) the return or control-flow stack. If you understand "data stack-juggling," why not the other? What's the hang-up on your end this time Hugh? > As usual, Rod is making no sense whatsoever. No, it seems you're just being an ass, like normal. E.g., replying to me within the reply to someone else so I won't see it, terminating with an insult, failing to reply to comments on your comments in other posts, replying to other things unrelated to what you posting, not listening to reason, not making sense, arguing to argue, repeating unfounded claims, not backing up claims, failing to remember you've discussed things three, four or more times, etc. Rod Pemberton