Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: ... and zen there were objects. Message-ID: Date: 17 Aug 90 12:58:51 GMT References: <11376@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 29 In article <11376@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes: > I would say the syntax with the > message at the end is really the most forth-like. Personally, I prefer "Arg Arg Message Object", too. Where "Object" executes (look up (possibly) message) (push self) (jump). But that's because I like Xlisp... either way seems reasonable. > > PushArg PushArg Message Object > Dissagree. I would call this syntax "inside out". Why? > >That looks ok, but it does not do anything. In order to do something you > >would have to add a special word. I would pick SEND, as in: > > 10 20 MoveTo MyRectangle SEND Why? Do you really want to pepper your code with SENDs? > But the same thing could be accomplished by: > PushArg PushArg Object ' Message SEND Or "Arg Arg Message 'Object SEND" (also, I like the idea of making the outer interpreter more powerful, so you can say 'name and get a symbol table entry. Then make "characters" just be a name. Then you get a SUPER-STOIC... (anyone remember STOIC)) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com (currently not working) peter@hackercorp.com