Re: Naming conventions

On 14/10/2024 3:24 pm, Ruvim wrote:

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? ))

"names that are short and to the point"

In SwiftForth one finds -? HUH?  Neither return a flag, OTOH both perform
a conditional action.