Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Separation of code and data space
Message-ID: <1596.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 24 Aug 90 05:05:53 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 29


In <9008230615.AA28602@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM writes:
> > Second, I think that the requirement for separate dictionary and code
> > spaces is overly restrictive and unnecessary.
> 
> It can be awfully handy for several environments:
> 
> a) ROM/RAM systems.
> b) "Harvard architectures" with separate code and data storage
> c) Turnkey applications where you may want to selectively remove
>    headers.
> d) Brain-damaged segmented architectures like the one that F-PC
>    has to run on.

I agree with your points.  What I was trying to say is that a separate
dictionary should not be *required*.  As many others have pointed out,
the abstraction that the dictionary provides is to map words into
code "objects".

-Doug

---
Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us  OR  ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp )
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp  [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]


---
Preferred: ( dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us  OR  ...!{sei,pitt}!willett!dwp )
Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp  [last resort: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]