Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines

On 1/02/2025 2:25 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:

...
I'm sure it works - but IMHO it heavily depends on whether those words are primitives or not. E.g. in 4tH this expends to:
 
: local r> rot rot dup @ over >r >r ! ;: r> r> ! ;
 
And if I want to be pedantic, I have to include two SWAPs as well for the proper definition of 2>R and 2R> 

Of course but for most forths it should be fine.

- not to mention that you sometimes *DON'T* want to initialize your locals.

Well, now we're talking about something that's not the norm for locals and
that may be worth a discussion.

 
Another (consequential) disadvantage of this definition is that you have to *DEFINE* your words in reverse - a drawback which it shares with the original ANS LOCALS wordset.

Drawback for those wanting locals that fake a stack comment.  IIRC iForth has
LOCAL so clearly not everyone is fussed.  If I use locals I'm more likely to
use the ANS notation.  I notice Forth Inc does too - perhaps why they were so
adverse to conceding to { } .