Re: quotations

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: quotations
De : dxforth (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dxf)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 09. Feb 2025, 02:13:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <e5ab777495f7ff1da4eb1287daa6939a760b4381@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/02/2025 10:41 pm, Anton Ertl wrote:
dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/02/2025 4:20 am, Anton Ertl wrote:
dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/02/2025 12:59 am, minforth wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 12:57:12 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:
AFAIR 200x nested definitions were justified on the grounds named
definitions were neither needed nor wanted
>
Really?  There's a proposal to eliminate named definitions?  That's
news to me.
>
I didn't but clearly those that argued for quotations did.
 
They did what?  Make a proposal for eliminating named definitions?
Where can I find that proposal?  I was one of the proposers of
quotations, so I certainly argued for them, and I am completely
unaware of a proposal like you claim, neither from me, nor Alex
McDonald (the first proposer of quotations), nor of anybody else
arguing for quotations.  Please present evidence of such a proposal.

Let's not play semantics.  Quotations are promoting nameless definitions.

There's a case for having NONAME: which has no name and must pass an xt.
 
Let's look at an example from the proposal:
 
: hex. ( u -- )
  base @ >r
  [: hex u. ;] catch
  r> base ! throw ;
 
There is no good way for replacing the quotation here with NONAME:, so
NONAME: is a red herring.

When was it necessary CATCH should operate on nameless definitions?  The
rationale for :NONAME was given in the ANS document.  I see nothing of
value in the example you quote.

This only strengthened my view forth quotations had nothing to offer but
namelessness.
 
They also offer nesting.

They offer confusion since there's no name.  What language do you know where
nested definitions are nameless?  In Minforth's recent example he named the
quotation.  The only reason I can think is because a name made it readable!

I have used :NONAME and found it useful.  It's by no means an everyday thing -
indeed it's the exception.  I can't say the same about quotations - which strike
me as being wrong in every way, not least because they are intended to feature
prominently, stuffed in one's face.  I don't understand the appeal at all.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
31 Jan 25 * Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines91dxf
31 Jan 25 +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1Anton Ertl
31 Jan 25 +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1albert
31 Jan 25 +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines14Hans Bezemer
1 Feb 25 i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines13dxf
1 Feb 25 i `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines12Anton Ertl
1 Feb 25 i  +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines4dxf
1 Feb 25 i  i+- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1albert
1 Feb 25 i  i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2Anton Ertl
2 Feb 25 i  i `- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf
2 Feb 25 i  `* Re: Use of { and } was Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines7dxf
2 Feb 25 i   `* Re: Use of { and } was Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines6Anton Ertl
2 Feb 25 i    +- Re: Use of { and } was Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf
2 Feb 25 i    +* Re: Use of { and } was Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2Anton Ertl
2 Feb 25 i    i`- Re: Use of { and } was Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1Bernd Linsel
6 Feb 25 i    `* Re: Use of { and } was Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2Waldek Hebisch
6 Feb 25 i     `- Re: Use of { and } was Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf
1 Feb 25 +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines70Ruvim
2 Feb 25 i+- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf
2 Feb 25 i+* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2Paul Rubin
3 Feb 25 ii`- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf
3 Feb 25 i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines66Ruvim
3 Feb 25 i +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines57albert
3 Feb 25 i i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines56Paul Rubin
4 Feb 25 i i `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines55albert
6 Feb 25 i i  +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2HenryHH
6 Feb 25 i i  i`- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1albert
6 Feb 25 i i  `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines52minforth
6 Feb 25 i i   +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2albert
6 Feb 25 i i   i`- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1minforth
6 Feb 25 i i   `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines49Anton Ertl
6 Feb 25 i i    `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines48minforth
6 Feb 25 i i     +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines19dxf
6 Feb 25 i i     i+* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2minforth
7 Feb 25 i i     ii`- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1sjack
6 Feb 25 i i     i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines16Anton Ertl
6 Feb 25 i i     i +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1minforth
7 Feb 25 i i     i `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines14dxf
7 Feb 25 i i     i  +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2minforth
7 Feb 25 i i     i  i`- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf
8 Feb 25 i i     i  `* quotations (was: Back & Forth - Co-routines)11Anton Ertl
9 Feb 25 i i     i   +* Re: quotations9dxf
9 Feb 25 i i     i   i+* Re: quotations4Paul Rubin
9 Feb 25 i i     i   ii`* Re: quotations3dxf
9 Feb 25 i i     i   ii `* Re: quotations2Paul Rubin
9 Feb 25 i i     i   ii  `- Re: quotations1minforth
9 Feb 25 i i     i   i`* Re: quotations4Anton Ertl
9 Feb 25 i i     i   i +- Re: quotations1albert
10 Feb 25 i i     i   i `* Re: quotations2dxf
10 Feb 25 i i     i   i  `- Re: quotations1albert
9 Feb 25 i i     i   `- Re: quotations (was: Back & Forth - Co-routines)1albert
6 Feb 25 i i     +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines27Anton Ertl
6 Feb 25 i i     i+- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1minforth
7 Feb 25 i i     i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines25minforth
8 Feb 25 i i     i `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines24Anton Ertl
8 Feb 25 i i     i  +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines4minforth
9 Feb 25 i i     i  i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines3Paul Rubin
9 Feb 25 i i     i  i +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1minforth
9 Feb 25 i i     i  i `- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1Anton Ertl
9 Feb 25 i i     i  `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines19Paul Rubin
9 Feb 25 i i     i   +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines3minforth
9 Feb 25 i i     i   i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2Paul Rubin
10 Feb 25 i i     i   i `- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1minforth
10 Feb 25 i i     i   `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines15Anton Ertl
10 Feb 25 i i     i    +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines8ahmed
10 Feb 25 i i     i    i`* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines7Anton Ertl
10 Feb 25 i i     i    i +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1ahmed
10 Feb 25 i i     i    i +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1minforth
10 Feb 25 i i     i    i +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines3mhx
10 Feb 25 i i     i    i i+- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1albert
10 Feb 25 i i     i    i i`- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1Paul Rubin
10 Feb 25 i i     i    i `- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1albert
10 Feb 25 i i     i    `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines6Paul Rubin
11 Feb 25 i i     i     `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines5minforth
11 Feb 25 i i     i      `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines4Paul Rubin
12 Feb 25 i i     i       +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1albert
12 Feb 25 i i     i       `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2minforth
14 Feb 25 i i     i        `- Multi-Tasking (was: Back & Forth - Co-routines)1Anton Ertl
7 Feb 25 i i     `- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1minforth
22 Mar 25 i `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines8sjack
23 Mar 25 i  `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines7dxf
23 Mar 25 i   +* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2sjack
24 Mar 25 i   i`- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1sjack
24 Mar 25 i   +- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1sjack
24 Mar 25 i   `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines3dxf
24 Mar 25 i    `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2dxf
24 Mar 25 i     `- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf
11 Mar 25 `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines4dxf
21 Mar 25  `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines3dxf
21 Mar 25   `* Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines2dxf
22 Mar 25    `- Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines1dxf

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal