Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Experimental Ideas
Message-ID: <1461.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 6 Aug 90 03:28:17 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 34


 Date: 08-01-90 (08:13)              Number: 3597 (Echo)
   To: GARY SMITH                    Refer#: 3584
 From: ZAFAR ESSAK                     Read: NO
 Subj: THOUGHTS ON FORTH             Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 This reminds me of a conversation the other night with a chap who was 
 talking about the extensions they have added to their Forth development 
 environment.  Some I can recall where: 

 Parent and child definitions, allowing large procedures to be coded as 
 a series of smaller definitions that compile as one large routine 
 saving on resources such as code space taken up by each definition's 
 call. 

 Local variables with the added provision that child definitions can 
 call on locals belonging to the parent definition and maybe other 
 siblings. 

 Definitions that execute a jump-through-address-with-offset, utilizing 
 assembly opcodes native to the machine. 

 These are some ideas borrowed from other languages or the architecture 
 of the machine.  He felt Forth was stagnating with so much effort 
 on the primitives and so little effort on future advances. 

 Zafar. 
 ---
  * Via Qwikmail 2.01

 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886   
-----
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