Re: VALUE and TO implementation

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: VALUE and TO implementation
De : anton (at) *nospam* mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 01. Aug 2024, 11:07:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID : <2024Aug1.120730@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : xrn 10.11
Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> writes:
On 2024-07-31 21:33, Anton Ertl wrote:
Maybe those who like this kind of
TO implementation will make a proposal that means that you cannot
POSTPONE TO with a user-defined POSTPONE.
>
How?

That's up to those to work out who would benefit from such a
restriction.  The alternative (which may require less work) is to
implement TO in a way that makes such a restriction unnecessary (i.e.,
such that POSTPONE TO works even with a user-defined and maybe also
the system-defined POSTPONE).

Disallow obtaining the name token for "to"? That's a very weak
approach.

That appears to be overly blunt to me and would be unlikely to gain my
support.

It seems, it is possible to test whether "to" is parsing, and if not,
redefine it to provide a parsing "to" in a standard system.
>
I came up with the following test:
>
  0 value _v1 immediate
  0 value _v2
>
  : test(to)
    1 1
    [ 1 ] to _v1 _v2 [ ( 1 | 1 0 ) ?dup 2drop ]
    ( 1 | 1 0 ) ?dup 2drop
  ;
  test(to) _v2 [if]
    .( ["to" is not a parsing word] )
  [else]
    .( ["to" is a parsing word] )
  [then]

This is clever.  Given that your test uses only Forth-94 features,
already Forth-94 can see the difference between parsing and
non-parsing TO.

Suddenly, compilation of "test(to)" failed in VfxForth, version
VFX Forth 64 5.43 [build 0199] 2023-11-09 for Linux x64
>
So, either this "test(to)" or VfxForth is not standard compliant.

I see nothing here that makes TEST(TO) non-standard.  One can condense
the case where VFX fails into:

0 value _v1 immediate
: test-to 1 to _v1 ;

VFX Forth 64 5.43 [build 0199] reacts with:

Err# -4 ERR: Data stack underflow.
 -> : test-to 1 to _v1 ;
                      ^

Let's see how your test works for the original flag-setting TO
(without optimizations):

variable to-state false to-state !
: to true to-state ! ;
: value
    create ,
  does>
    to-state @ if
      ! false to-state !
    else
      @
    then ;

Your test indeed outputs "["to" is not a parsing word]".

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
   EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net

Date Sujet#  Auteur
25 Jul 24 * Operator overloading?78minforth
25 Jul 24 +- Re: Operator overloading?1dxf
25 Jul 24 +* Re: Operator overloading?18Michael Raitza
25 Jul 24 i`* Re: Operator overloading?17minforth
25 Jul 24 i +* Re: Operator overloading?5mhx
25 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Operator overloading?4minforth
26 Jul 24 i i `* Re: Operator overloading?3minforth
26 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: Operator overloading?2mhx
26 Jul 24 i i   `- Re: Operator overloading?1minforth
25 Jul 24 i `* Re: Operator overloading?11Anton Ertl
25 Jul 24 i  +* Re: Operator overloading?2minforth
30 Jul 24 i  i`- Re: Operator overloading?1Ruvim
27 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Operator overloading?8minforth
27 Jul 24 i   `* Re: Operator overloading?7Anton Ertl
27 Jul 24 i    +* Re: Operator overloading?4minforth
30 Jul 24 i    i+- quotations and closures (was: Operator overloading?)1Ruvim
1 Aug 24 i    i`* Re: Operator overloading?2Anton Ertl
1 Aug 24 i    i `- Re: Operator overloading?1minforth
27 Jul 24 i    `* Re: Operator overloading?2albert
29 Jul 24 i     `- Re: Operator overloading?1minforth
26 Jul 24 +- Re: Operator overloading?1Jan Coombs
30 Jul 24 `* Re: Operator overloading?57Stephen Pelc
30 Jul 24  +* Re: Operator overloading?3minforth
30 Jul 24  i+- Re: Operator overloading?1Stephen Pelc
1 Aug 24  i`- Re: Operator overloading?1Anton Ertl
31 Jul 24  `* Re: Operator overloading?53albert
31 Jul 24   `* Re: Operator overloading?52Gerry Jackson
31 Jul 24    +* Re: Operator overloading?50mhx
31 Jul 24    i+* Re: Operator overloading?3minforth
31 Jul 24    ii`* Re: Operator overloading?2mhx
31 Jul 24    ii `- Re: Operator overloading?1mhx
31 Jul 24    i+* VALUE and TO implementation (was: Operator overloading?)45Ruvim
31 Jul 24    ii+* Re: VALUE and TO implementation (was: Operator overloading?)41Anton Ertl
1 Aug 24    iii`* Re: VALUE and TO implementation40Ruvim
1 Aug 24    iii `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation39Anton Ertl
2 Aug 24    iii  `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation38Ruvim
3 Aug 24    iii   +* Re: VALUE and TO implementation35minforth
3 Aug 24    iii   i+* Re: VALUE and TO implementation33Ruvim
3 Aug 24    iii   ii`* Re: VALUE and TO implementation32minforth
4 Aug 24    iii   ii `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation31Ruvim
4 Aug 24    iii   ii  `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation30mhx
4 Aug 24    iii   ii   +* Re: VALUE and TO implementation4Paul Rubin
4 Aug 24    iii   ii   i+* Re: VALUE and TO implementation2mhx
4 Aug 24    iii   ii   ii`- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1Ruvim
4 Aug 24    iii   ii   i`- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1Ruvim
4 Aug 24    iii   ii   +- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1Anton Ertl
4 Aug 24    iii   ii   +* Alternative for long parsing words (was: VALUE and TO implementation)9Ruvim
5 Aug 24    iii   ii   i`* Re: Alternative for long parsing words (was: VALUE and TO implementation)8albert
5 Aug 24    iii   ii   i `* Re: Alternative for long parsing words7Ruvim
5 Aug 24    iii   ii   i  +* Re: Alternative for long parsing words5Anton Ertl
6 Aug 24    iii   ii   i  i+* Re: Alternative for long parsing words2Ruvim
6 Aug 24    iii   ii   i  ii`- Re: Alternative for long parsing words1mhx
6 Aug 24    iii   ii   i  i`* Re: Alternative for long parsing words2Ruvim
9 Aug 24    iii   ii   i  i `- Re: Alternative for long parsing words1Ruvim
6 Aug 24    iii   ii   i  `- Re: Alternative for long parsing words1albert
5 Aug 24    iii   ii   +- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1Stephen Pelc
5 Aug 24    iii   ii   `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation14dxf
5 Aug 24    iii   ii    `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation13mhx
5 Aug 24    iii   ii     +* Re: VALUE and TO implementation10dxf
5 Aug 24    iii   ii     i`* Re: VALUE and TO implementation9Ruvim
6 Aug 24    iii   ii     i `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation8dxf
7 Aug 24    iii   ii     i  `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation7dxf
7 Aug 24    iii   ii     i   +* Re: VALUE and TO implementation3Anton Ertl
7 Aug 24    iii   ii     i   i+- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1dxf
7 Aug 24    iii   ii     i   i`- Interpretation semantics (was: VALUE and TO implementation)1Ruvim
7 Aug 24    iii   ii     i   `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation3albert
7 Aug 24    iii   ii     i    `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation2Paul Rubin
8 Aug 24    iii   ii     i     `- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1albert
5 Aug 24    iii   ii     `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation2Anton Ertl
6 Aug 24    iii   ii      `- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1albert
3 Aug 24    iii   i`- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1Anton Ertl
3 Aug 24    iii   `* Re: VALUE and TO implementation2mhx
4 Aug 24    iii    `- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1Ruvim
1 Aug 24    ii+* Re: VALUE and TO implementation2minforth
2 Aug 24    iii`- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1albert
1 Aug 24    ii`- Re: VALUE and TO implementation1Ruvim
31 Jul 24    i`- Re: Operator overloading?1Gerry Jackson
31 Jul 24    `- Re: Operator overloading?1Anton Ertl

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal