Re: Nested definitions

In article <1043831$3ggg9$1@dont-email.me>,
Ruvim  <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2025-07-02 15:37, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <1042s2o$3d58h$1@dont-email.me>,
Ruvim  <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2025-06-24 01:03, minforth wrote:
[...]
>

For me, the small syntax extension is a convenience when working
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 ... > ;>

>
BTW, why do you prefer the special syntax `<: ... ;>`
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.

>
Or it has not even know it, if [ is smart enough to compile a jump to
after ].

>
This can be tricky because the following should work:
>
  create foo [ 123 , ] [ 456 ,
>
  : bar  [ ' foo compile, 123 lit, ] ;

If this bothers you, rename it in [[ ]].

Once we enhance [ ] to do things prohibited by the standard,
(adding nested definitions) I can't be bothered with this too much.

--
Ruvim
>

Groetjes Albert
--
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.