Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: does VFX have the same bug as Gforth? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 22:19:17 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <7f2a965b-6053-44c4-ac8c-5c977f197de8@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:32961 On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:03:59 -0400, wrote: > How am I supposed to know whether a word is compile-only or not? What you need to ask is: 1) How is *code* supposed to "know" whether a word is tick'able or not? 2) How is *code* supposed to "know" whether a word is compile-only or not? No one really cares if you know or not ... The real issue is how code can determine answers to those questions without a person being involved as part of the process. I.e., universal code. Apparently, Hugh expects Forth code to be universal and/or portable due to ANS. C isn't, even after multiple standards. It's only partially so. (Although, even that simple, truthful statement likely to start an intense flame war on comp.lang.c.) > I was told previously that semi-colon didn't have an xt, but now you > tell me that it does have an xt but that ' can't find it and COMP' can > find it --- if it has an xt, why doesn't ' just spit it out? I can't imagine an interpreted Forth not having an xt for semi-colon. I can understand a compiled Forth not having an xt for semi-colon. > None of this stuff makes any sense whatsoever! Doh! Rod Pemberton