Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.etla.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Control-flow stack (was: Static Single Assignment ...) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:43:19 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <82c4c3dc-7692-4d03-a447-9bdd54ff9387@googlegroups.com> <5bbc76d4-6847-4e8d-8e55-68a4d5ffa118@googlegroups.com> <54d9ff6a$0$3895$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl> <2015Feb10.152916@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.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:36445 On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:49:19 -0500, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 10/02/2015 14:29:19, wrote: >> albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >>> In article , >>> Alex McDonald wrote: >>>> Where this wouldn't work is >>>> >>>> : foo ... [ buf-size maxbuffer - dup 1+ ] if literal >>>> else literal then .. ; >>>> >>>> Here the control flow, if on the data stack, has pushed down the >>>> literals and we can't get at them. Are you claiming this is >>>> idiomatic, with use of LITERAL inside a control flow where the >>>> literal value is put on the stack before it? >>>> >>> >>> If Hugh isn't, I am. >> >> It seems to me that using the data stack as control-flow stack is >> common practice (are there any exceptions?). > > Category A. Hugh (and possibly Albert) wants the control flow stack > to *not* be the data stack. And, it can't be the return stack either because that would break threading. So ... They want a dedicated third stack. Yes? Rod Pemberton