Re: Parsing timestamps?

On 10/06/2025 8:43 pm, LIT wrote:

: SCAN-NUMBER-OR-SKIP ( n adr len -- n' adr' len')
  DUP >R
  0 0 2SWAP >NUMBER
  DUP R> =
  IF  2SWAP 2DROP  1 /STRING
  ELSE
    2>R D>S SWAP 60 * + 2R>
  THEN ;

>
0 0 2SWAP >NUMBER  invariably crops up so I have it in the kernel as
(NUMBER).  2SWAP 2DROP  is another and becomes  2NIP.  Forth would
have one define the same thing over and over.  Do it once and be done
with it IMO.

 
So now you see: one can either use variable to
make the solution cleaner - or one can create new word(s).
Either way - some new names are added to the vocabulary.
Why the use of variable, instead of new words,
should be perceived of 'inferior'? Variable is a word too.

Unlike variables, factors (subroutines) don't contradict effective
stack-based programming.