home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!venezia!penev
- From: penev@venezia (Penio Penev)
- Subject: Re: FOR...NEXT in Eforth
- References: <1993Jan25.213716.10378@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Sender: nobody@ctr.columbia.edu
- Organization: Rockefeller University
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:40:29 GMT
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.064029.13614@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
- Reply-To: penev@venezia.rockefeller.edu
- X-Posted-From: venezia.rockefeller.edu
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
- Lines: 25
-
- Julian V. Noble (jvn@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
- : Thanks to all the kind folks who sent their implementations of DOES>
- : for Eforth.
- :
- : Now I would like a show of hands: How many people agree with me that
- : the word NEXT is too important, universal, ubiquitous, etc. to be
- : taken over as the terminus of a FOR...NEXT loop? I would propose
- : that NEXT be reserved for its traditional purpose, and that the end
- : of a FOR...NEXT loop be called one of several possibilities:
-
- It is so in indirect threaded FORTHs. When You have a native FORTH, it
- is not used. The former kind of FORTHs usually have a VOCABULARY
- ASSEMBLER and the NEXT should ne define as a macro in it. So its in
- VOCABULARY FORTH should not be a problem. Well, the Enginsh language
- has so few words...
-
- I personally do not have a NEXT macro, since I use a native FORTH. I
- use lower case for the assembler words to distinguish them from FORTH
- words ( e.g. AND & and , OR & or ..). When I write CODE definitions, I
- finish them with ret . May be I could use END ( a shorcut for
- END-CODE) too. Yet another example of the saying: "The best tool for
- the FORTH programmer is a good thesaurus."
-
- -- Penio.
-
-