Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl forth |
On 2025-06-24 01:03, minforth wrote:Are you sure? gforth test:
[...]
For me, the small syntax extension is a convenience when workingBTW, why do you prefer the special syntax `<: ... ;>`
with longer definitions. A bit contrived (:= synonym for TO):
>
: SOME-APP { a f: b c | temp == n: flag z: freq }
\ inputs: integer a, floats b c
\ uninitialized: float temp
\ outputs: integer flag, complex freq
<: FUNC < ... calc function ... > ;>
over an extension to the existing words `:` and `;`
: SOME-APP
[ : FUNC < ... calc function ... > ; ]
< ... >
;
In this approach the word `:` knows that it's a nested definition and behaves accordingly.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.