Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #53747
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: A formal name? |
| Date | 2017-01-05 08:20 +0000 |
| Organization | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| Message-ID | <2017Jan5.092052@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| References | <b2ddded9-c328-4886-9bff-96208871d881@googlegroups.com> <20170103001345.71d79c23@_> <dOydnY7RA-XbxvbFnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@supernews.com> <20170103202548.60eda8bb@_> |
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> writes:
>So, it seems that there is a subtle distinction between "primitives"
>and either "run-time code for [xxx]" or "run-time routines for
>non-primitives". It seems that "primitives" are only single-use
>run-time code, while the "doers", or "generic actions", can be used
>repeatedly. Is that correct?
I think the main difference is that primitives are words, and these
run-time routines are not. In a Forth/assembler implementation of
Forth, primitives are defined with CODE, and these run-time routines
are the code behind ;CODE.
If a system has words for these routines (e.g., DOCOL:, DOVAR: etc. in
Gforth), these words don't execute the routine, unlike for primitives,
because executing these routines don't make sense on their own;
instead, such words typically produce the address of the routine, and
are used for building non-primitives.
Concerning the term "secondaries", the way I have seen it used is for
colon definitions. That's why I use "non-primitives" for the class of
words that use these run-time routines.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 18:11 -0800
Re: A formal name? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-03 00:13 -0500
Re: A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 21:58 -0800
Re: A formal name? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-02 22:05 -1000
Re: A formal name? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-03 20:25 -0500
Re: A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 17:10 -0800
Re: A formal name? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-04 16:20 -1000
Re: A formal name? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-05 08:20 +0000
Re: A formal name? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-02 21:58 -0800
Re: A formal name? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-03 12:17 +0000
Re: A formal name? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-01-03 08:16 -0800
csiph-web