Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl forth |
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.
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.
This only strengthened my view forth quotations had nothing to offer but
namelessness.
They also offer nesting.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.