Sujet : Re: VALUE and TO implementation
De : ruvim.pinka (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ruvim)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 05. Aug 2024, 17:08:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8qter$pikr$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2024-08-05 19:07, dxf wrote:
On 5/08/2024 10:38 pm, mhx wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:26:26 +0000, dxf wrote:
>
On 4/08/2024 5:17 pm, mhx wrote:
However, as I showed earlier, a parsing "TO" has several advantages over
a non-parsing "TO".
>
Am I the only one that thinks parsing words are an incredible nuisance?
>
Don't know but to this day Mitch Bradley (ANS, Open Firmware) still uses
parsing words to interpret hex, double, float numbers.
>
"de gustibus non disputandum est."
>
He also uses state-smart words.
>
Show me a Forther *without* strong opinions *and* unfathomable
inconsistencies.
I'm more interested in knowing how parsing words can be a nuisance? Do they
possess a life of their own?
We've been told state-smart words are evil.
The only reason for that evil is that `POSTPONE` in a classic implementation behaves incorrectly for them.
See "About POSTPONE semantics in edge cases" <
https://github.com/ForthHub/discussion/discussions/103>
Nobody have pointed out any logical error in my reasoning.
-- Ruvim
Operator overloading?
Re: Operator overloading?
