Re: Alternative for long parsing words (was: VALUE and TO implementation)

In article <v8nrb0$3vbpv$3@dont-email.me>,
Ruvim  <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2024-08-04 15:11, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

Particularly I hate ' / ['] .
My solution that ' has to elevated to a denotation.
Meaning 'someword leave the address/dea/handle/nametoken
of `` someword '' that is the same in interpret and compile mode.

>
>
I also often use `'someword` instead of `['] someword` and `' someword`,
because I hate different forms for the conceptually same thing in
interpretation and compilation, and because the form `'someword` is shorter.
>
Another thing I hate is when it's not obvious that a word is a parsing
word, or what its delimiter. So I prefer when parsing delimiters are
visible.
>
For example, I would prefer:
  want( word1 word2 word3 )
rather than:
  want word1 want word2 want word3

I have changed WANT to accept several words on the same line
    want word1 word2 word3
This is one of the few "improvements" I'm not sure about.
By itself WANT is a concession because it is actually
"word1" WANTED "word2" WANTED "word3" WANTED
Your proposal makes sense, having several WANT(ED) on the same line
is ugly and impractical, but parsing to the end of line is dubious.

>
But if you hate parsing words in principle (just because they do
parsing), why not hate such long parsing words like `[if]`, `\`, the
construct "]]...[[", etc? What is an alternative for them?

WANT is used recursively in blocks. If you wanted to accomplish the
same thing with [IF], it would be a horrid mess.
The same blockfile is valid for MSDOS WINDOWS DPMI en DLL en LINUX
 and 32 64 bit forths.
For example ALIAS is used all over the place, but it is not in the kernel.
"ALIAS" WANTED can be added and that is it.
WANTED and the conditional rejection of blocks is all that is needed.
This is the header of a block that is only valid for 32 bits.
( CRC-MORE CRC ) CF:  ?32                  \ AvdH C2feb27
Note that it is orthogonal to any windows/linux distinction.

I actually like \ because it is absolutely obvious where the comment ends.
I hate DOC / ENDDOC pairs and the worst is that you define such pair
<------- / -----> for a meta forth compilation, as I have seen.

]] .. [[      confuses me.
I have introduced
:I inl aa bb cc ;
The :I means that the definition is supposed to be inlined.
That allows bb for instance be >R .

If you want separate behaviours in some mode, they must be arrived
at via the dea.
>

>
Agreed.
>
But simplicity of the dual-nt approach (like in cmForth) is sometimes
preferable. Because compilation semantics for a word are defined as an
ordinary word.

I do not object replacing >CFA (executable address) with >CFA1
and >CFA2 as long as the starting point is the dea.

--
Ruvim
>

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -