Re: Back & Forth - Co-routines

In article <a33bc1882ad45b21b93e051c9be958821dcfb27b@i2pn2.org>,
dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/02/2025 6:50 pm, Anton Ertl wrote:

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

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 { } .

>
The reason why Forth, Inc. argued against { } is that they support an
existing code base that uses { } for comments; they use { } comments
extensively in SwiftForth, and their customers use it, too.  They
voted for {: :}, so they obviously don't have a problem with the
ordering of locals in {: :} (which is the same as for { }).

>
IIRC FI was pressed hard for { } but they wouldn't budge.  It was odd
since a single character to delimit a comment was inherently problematic.

You got that right. In a language like Forth or assembler, the only good
solution is a single character that runs until the end of line, such as
; and \ .
DOC ENDDOC is used to comment pages of code, so that you cannot see it is
commented out bleh!

If your editor isn't capable to turn

: XXGCD   2DUP SWAP XGCD   ( A B D GCD )
    DUP 0< IF NEGATE SWAP NEGATE SWAP THEN
    DUP >R OVER >R          ( R: GCD D )
    >R * R> SWAP - /         ( A B D GCD -- C )
    R> R> ;

into

\ : XXGCD   2DUP SWAP XGCD   ( A B D GCD )
\     DUP 0< IF NEGATE SWAP NEGATE SWAP THEN
\     DUP >R OVER >R          ( R: GCD D )
\     >R * R> SWAP - /         ( A B D GCD -- C )
\     R> R> ;

and reverse it, get your money back.

I find it hard to believe FI customers wouldn't have jumped at the chance
to get a proper comment scheme and nicer looking locals syntax.  As it is
now they're stuck with two lesser things.

Not hard to believe.
Changing millions of lines of code, for a dubious advantage.

>

Using WHERE LOCALS| in SwiftForth x64-Linux 4.0.0-RC89 only brings up
the definition of LOCALS|, but no uses.  "WHERE {:" brings up the
definition and 5 uses of "{:", all with more than one local; so they
obviously do not have a problem with the ordering of locals in {: :}.
Can you elaborate on what you have noticed?

>
Interesting since...
>
SwiftForth i386-Win32 3.11.9-RC1 01-Sep-2022
>
85 matches for LOCAL|  (a few false positives in that)
0  matches for {: :}   (despite being implemented)
>

LOCAL| apparently fit the bill. It still is standard. Why change?
If you have a large code base, uniformity is an advantage.

Groetjes Albert.
--
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.