Re: "Back & Forth" - Local variables

In article <nnd$3977f8e0$309bbbfa@b7c8c77c999f35b5>,
Hans Bezemer  <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12-03-2025 11:29, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <858080e0b3faa16a4b9ba24e3b34e12a555494b4@i2pn2.org>,
dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/03/2025 8:14 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:

...

>

This discussion is typical of Forth. A specification of a word
is essential,  then I can implement it.
I quarrel about the meaning of ;: , and you casually mention
"do ;:" as if everybody knows what this is supposed to mean.
>
This is the specification of CO .
Note how the stack effect is ( -- ) .
For most Forthers this is a apparently a sufficient specification.

>
Oh, it clarifies everything!

You mean that "stack effect is ( -- )" clarifies everything?
You must be sarcastic.

This was an invitation to show a specification of ;; in the same vein.

>
If we assume ;: to be "EXECUTE" and YIELD to be "R> EXECUTE" then ;: can
be coded as ">R YIELD" and YIELD (aka CO) as "R> ;:".

So
: ;: >R YIELD ;       \ Insert POSTPONE as appropriate
: YIELD R> ;; ;       \ Insert POSTPONE as appropriate

Very illuminating.

You seem to imply that CO and YIELD are the same.
That doesn't help me one bit to understand ;: .
"
    : ;: >R YIELD ;
"
is an accidental implementation that almost certainly doesn't work
on gforth or ciforth.
There are two problems with it:
1. Unbalanced return stack
2. YIELD is not defined.

>
And I can assure you that works.. No matter which definition you apply
to those words - either inlined or high level.
>
I think that definitely proves the two words are intimately related ;-)
>
Hans Bezemer
>

--
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.