Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: uninitialized and implicitly initialized locals (was: More ranting) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 21:58:56 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <45d05d06-5acf-4792-96cd-ab32e411a18b@googlegroups.com> <8b0123d6-4076-4dce-a0eb-c6163148bf30@googlegroups.com> <5433dfd9$0$6905$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> <2014Oct7.173637@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <658808e2-74fc-47d0-8d54-85f51e1466e2@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:33995 On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:22:12 -0400, wrote: > In 13.3.3 we have this rule that you apparently consider to be perfectly > logical: > > - Locals shall not be declared until values previously placed on the > return stack within the definition have been removed; > - After a definition's locals have been declared, a program may place > data on the return stack. However, if this is done, locals shall not be > accessed until those values have been removed from the return stack; > > I expect that most people learning Forth would find such a rule to be > "capricious or arbitrary" --- maybe that is why so few are volunteering > to learn Forth, do you think? That says a return stack is a stack and must be used like a stack. It says a return stack is not an addressable array or register file. How is a stack being used as a stack arbitrary and capricious? ... Rod Pemberton