Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29321 > unrolled thread

Which input to use?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Which input to use? Lauri Alanko <la@iki.fi> - 2014-04-06 14:13 +0000
    Re: Which input to use? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-04-06 07:59 -0700
      Re: Which input to use? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-06 08:26 -1000
        Re: Which input to use? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-19 19:48 -0700
          Re: Which input to use? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-21 02:09 +0100
            Re: Which input to use? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-04-21 04:01 -0400
    Re: Which input to use? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-06 23:16 -0700
    Re: Which input to use? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-07 10:44 +0000
    Re: Which input to use? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-07 17:45 +0000
      Re: Which input to use? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-04-07 12:09 -0700
        Re: Which input to use? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-08 16:11 +0000
          Re: Which input to use? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-04-08 13:05 -0700
      Re: Which input to use? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-08 03:18 -0500
        Re: Which input to use? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-08 10:49 +0000
          Re: Which input to use? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-09 16:07 +0000
            Re: Which input to use? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-10 01:36 +0000
              Re: Which input to use? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-11 17:59 +0000
        Re: Which input to use? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-04-08 12:28 +0100
        Re: Which input to use? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-04-08 21:03 -0700
          Re: Which input to use? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-04-09 03:14 -0500
        EXECUTE-PARSING (was: Which input to use?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-04-09 15:13 +0000
          Re: EXECUTE-PARSING (was: Which input to use?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-04-09 18:54 +0200
            Re: EXECUTE-PARSING (was: Which input to use?) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-04-09 22:44 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#29491 — EXECUTE-PARSING (was: Which input to use?)

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> You have understood it correctly, as far as the standard is
>> concerned.  As for the reason: I think there are too few people on
>> the standards committee who are interested in text processing.
>> Admittedly I have not tried much in that direction, but even
>> EXECUTE-PARSING, which would be useful beyond text processing, has
>> been met with resistance.
>
>I'm sure there is some truth in what you say.  EXECUTE-PARSING has an
>unbefsckinglievably awful name for such a simple concept, which is
>perhaps a significant psychological reason for that resistance.

I presented it informally at some Forth200x meeting and the complaint
was that it's not general enough; the objection was that there would
be more words like it, and that we should go for a more general word.

I then came up with something more general
<2009Apr3.231453@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, but did not like it much
(as you can read in that posting), and apparently nobody else has
liked it either; in any case, nobody has implemented it, and I have
not seen a proposal for something more general than EXECUTE-PARSING
from the direction where that objection to EXECUTE-PARSING came from,
either.

Now for the all-important naming discussion: I am not married to it.
If anybody comes up with one that's more generally acceptable, that's
fine with me.  I would argue against any name that contains "EVAL",
however.  The difference between EVALUATE and EXECUTE-PARSING is
exactly that EXECUTE-PARSING does not text-interpret the string, i.e.,
it does not EVALUATE.

You can interpret the name EXECUTE-PARSING as "EXECUTE, parsing the
passed-in string" or just as "execute a parsing word".  I know that
won't help Andrew, because his problem is that the name contains a
hyphen:-).

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29493 — Re: EXECUTE-PARSING (was: Which input to use?)

Anton Ertl wrote:
> You can interpret the name EXECUTE-PARSING as "EXECUTE, parsing the
> passed-in string" or just as "execute a parsing word".  I know that
> won't help Andrew, because his problem is that the name contains a
> hyphen:-).

We have a growing number of words which take an xt and execute it (higher 
order functions), and this is just one of them.  Therefore, we should think 
about a convention how to mark higher order functions; typical for Forth 
would be a pre- or postfix character which indicates that we execute 
something.  Just like <foo>@ or <foo>! indicate get and set, and <foo>? 
indicates a test.  Suggestions?  From C++'s templates, I would suggest using 
< and > around the name indicating that this takes an xt and is a sort-of 
template for doing things.

Another possibility is to use 'ing' as suffix, so PARSING is already a hint 
that this will take an xt for parsing.  I.e.

: :name ( addr u -- ) ['] : parsing ;

or

: :name ( addr u -- ) ['] : <parsing> ;

What looks better?

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29502 — Re: EXECUTE-PARSING (was: Which input to use?)

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 8:54:01 PM UTC+4, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Anton Ertl wrote:
> > You can interpret the name EXECUTE-PARSING as "EXECUTE, parsing the
> > passed-in string" or just as "execute a parsing word".  I know that
> > won't help Andrew, because his problem is that the name contains a
> > hyphen:-).
> 
> We have a growing number of words which take an xt and execute it (higher 
> order functions), and this is just one of them.  Therefore, we should think 
> about a convention how to mark higher order functions; typical for Forth 
> would be a pre- or postfix character which indicates that we execute 
> something.  Just like <foo>@ or <foo>! indicate get and set, and <foo>? 
> indicates a test.  Suggestions?  From C++'s templates, I would suggest using 
> < and > around the name indicating that this takes an xt and is a sort-of 
> template for doing things.
> 
> Another possibility is to use 'ing' as suffix, so PARSING is already a hint 
> that this will take an xt for parsing.  I.e.
> 
> : :name ( addr u -- ) ['] : parsing ;
> 
> or
> 
> : :name ( addr u -- ) ['] : <parsing> ;
> 
> What looks better?
> 

Why do not use `'' at the beginning of a word? So EXECUTE-PARSING turns into 'PARSING.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web