Re: recursion

On 2024-07-16 11:55, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-07-15 23:37, Ruvim wrote:

>
>
An even more better and more general approach:
>
   : binom ... forward binom ... ;
>
>
   : binom ... forward:binom ... ;
>
The later one can also be used as:
>
   : foo ... ['] forward:foo ... ;
>
>
An advantage of this approach is that it is more general than the "recursive" word, and you also don't have to repeat the definition name.

  One more advantage of this approach is that it works as expected when the compilation word list is absent in the search order. Because the reference in a definition is resolved once the forwarded word name is placed in the same compilation word list (regardless of the search order).

A low-level API (porcelain) to implement this functionality can be represented by the following words:
   forward-lit, ( -- x.lit-sys )
   forward-call, ( -- x.call-sys )
   compile-lit ( x x.lit-sys -- )
   compile-call ( xt x.call-sys -- )
Or which names are better?
Conceptually, the standard words can be defined as:
   : compile, ( xt -- ) forward-call, compile-call ;
   : lit, ( x -- ) forward-lit, compile-lit ;
   : literal state @ if lit, then ; immediate
--
Ruvim