Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!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: Postfixer FORTH
Message-ID: <1603.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 24 Aug 90 05:06:08 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 45


In <IRD5U21@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>                     I was about to point out you had invented PostScript,
> but that language doesn't allow multiple entry points. Still, it's pretty
> close to:
> 
> 	{ ... } /Next def

Aside from some twisted cases (Duff's device, tail-merged code)
I don't see much need for multiple entry points.  Usually that is done
by factoring.  Perhaps something like:

	: CREATE
		WORD
	ENTRY:
		( rest of CREATE )
	;
	" $CREATE" Is

But that still doesn't look as clean to me as:

	: CREATE
	    WORD
	    $CREATE
	;

> Still, it does demonstrate that at least at this level the PostScript
> full postfix form has its advantages...

Now if only ANSI will let me have the cake and eat it too:
Where "The cake" is clean post-fix way to do ugly prefix stuff now  ( and )
"eat it too" means use those clean words to make the existing words
	for backward compatibily and for user-at-the-keyboard convenience.
I think I go involved with Forth too late for this standards go around.

-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]