Re: ADDRESSABLE: value-flavoured words

On 2025-05-14 01:32, Anton Ertl wrote:

Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> writes:

Why does this name end with a colon?
Just `addressable` (without a colon) looks better.

 Inside a locals definition {: ... :}, names ending in ":" are
reserved.  So, to avoid potential conflicts with existing names in
existing standard code, the word used inside {: ... :} ends in a
colon.  And consequently, the word using outside {: ... :} ends in a
colon, too.

Punctuation marks looks special so each of them (if used) should have its own special meaning in naming conventions. If one of two similar words ends in a colon, and another does not — it looks very strange.
For example: `field:` and `+field` or `buffer:` and `constant`.
The argument "we already have a standard word `buffer`" does not justify us, moreover, this circumstance makes further aggravates the situation.
The argument about locals declaration syntax does not justify inconsistency in Forth words naming either.
`{: :}` is a special syntax, and the components it contains are not Forth words.  In this syntax, lexemes that consist of a single non-alphabetic character are also reserved. It's better to choose one of them to indicate an addressable local variable. For example `&`.
This looks better (or at least more concise):
    : foo {:  & x  & y  z :} ... ;
than this:
    : foo {:  addressable: x  addressable: y  z :} ... ;
But I would prefer something like this:
    : foo {:  &x  &y  z :} ... ;
And the name `addressable` is certainly better than `addressable:` in Gforth.

 

: bar {: addressable: x -- y :}
    5 addr x +! x ;

>
>
This declaration of `x` does not look good regardless of the colon.

 I hope this makes you think twice about whether you really need an
addressable value-flavoured local.

In my programs I try to avoid any non-standard means as much as possible.
--
Ruvim