Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl forth |
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:Okay - technically you are right. That's the beauty of Forth - there are so many standards, there is always one that fits your taste. But none the less, this site *DOES* contain another, somewhat shorter implementation:1. Adding general locals is trivial. It takes just one single line ofThere is no Forth-2012 implementation of locals. The proposal
Forth. Sure, you don't got the badly designed and much too heavy
Forth-2012 implementation,
includes a referece implementation, but that is based on a
non-standard word BUILDLV and is therefore not included in
<http://www.forth200x.org/reference-implementations/>;
instead, youThe smaller one is *TWO* screens - and is dependent on the LOCALS wordset. I don't consider that "short". But everyone has his own standards. My "short" is a screen.
find there two implementations written in Forth-94:
http://www.forth200x.org/reference-implementations/locals.fs
http://www.forth200x.org/reference-implementations/extended-locals.fs
Of these two the locals.fs implementation is the shorter and nicer
one. You can read about these two implementations in
<2021Mar3.171350@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>.
However, looking atI beg to differ, but that's another discussion. I don't intend to use it, though. It's just there to make a point.
<https://forth-standard.org/standard/locals/bColon>, it seems that the
editor included a variation of extensed-locals.fs.
4tH v3.64.2 will even support a *MUCH* lighter, butGreat! How good that Forth-2012 is not an implementation standard.
fully conformant Forth-2012 LOCALS implementation.
I'm a lot of things, but not a mind reader. I'm not even trying. If you'd like to project the image of the mysterious and elusive "3rd man", be my guest.If anything, yours is a primeWhich grapes do you suppose that I am unable to reach?
example of a "sour grape argument".
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.