Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Blocks vs Text files
Message-ID: <1314.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jul 90 03:01:56 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 30


 Date: 07-04-90 (13:45)              Number: 435 (Echo)
   To: GARY SMITH                    Refer#: 434
 From: RAY DUNCAN                      Read: 07-06-90 (19:15)
 Subj: BLOCK VS TEXT                 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 The implementation of SOURCE that Mitch describes is better than the
 traditional source stream logic but still relatively inefficient.  

 In LMI systems, the source stream itself is cached on a block-by-block
 or line-by-line basis before INTERPRET is called.  Each time WORD
 executes it merely needs to use the 2EQU SOURCE (which functions like a
 2CONSTANT to provide the base and length of the input stream) and >IN to
 parse off the next token. Nothing inside the INTERPRET loop ever looks
 at TIB, #TIB, or BLK at all.

 NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530             

 Date: 07-04-90 (13:47)              Number: 436 (Echo)
   To: GARY SMITH                    Refer#: 434
 From: RAY DUNCAN                      Read: 07-06-90 (19:15)
 Subj: BLOCK VS TEXT                 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 Incidentally, LMI supports compilation from either text files or from
 BLOCKs, and also provides utilities to convert one to the other.  

 NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530             
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu