Sujet : Re: Naming conventions
De : ruvim.pinka (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ruvim)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 14. Oct 2024, 05:24:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vei6dn$12fqn$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2024-10-13 09:27, dxf wrote:
On 13/10/2024 3:10 pm, Ruvim wrote:
On 2024-10-13 06:59, dxf wrote:
On 13/10/2024 1:20 pm, Ruvim wrote:
On 2024-10-13 05:13, dxf wrote:
On 13/10/2024 12:54 am, Ruvim wrote:
On 2024-10-12 05:45, dxf wrote:
The basics:
>
: .BAD ( -- ) cr ." Invalid item" .abort ;
>
: ZE? ( x -- ) if .bad then ; \ abort if non-zero
: NZ? ( x -- ) 0= ze? ; \ abort if zero
>
Typically, if word name ends with a question mark, the first (top)
output parameter of the word is a *flag*. And it's true for all
standard words. (though, opposite is not true)
>
It's rather similar.
>
ZE? NZ? destructively tests TOS
>
But these words do not return a flag in the first output parameter.
So, their names violate the common convention.
>
Conventions are a guide. Thankfully they're not yet a law.
>
>
Sure. But the mentioned conventions seem good.
>
If you are proposing generally useful words, and their names violate
a common convention, you could probably explain why it is not worth
following that convention in this case (or in general).
Convention means doing something in a consistent way unless there's
a reason to do otherwise.
And what is your *reason* to do otherwise in this case? ))
-- Ruvim
Number parsing with checks
Re: Number parsing with checks