Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!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: Factoring of CREATE
Message-ID: <1627.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 29 Aug 90 03:13:51 GMT
References: <=NE50E5@xds13.ferranti.com>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 24

In <=NE50E5@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

> I'm not sure that's the right way to factor them. Better would be a word
> that created an anonymous thing (I'd say "object" but that has connotations
> I'm not interested in for this discussion), and a word that names an object:
> 
> : ... ; foo define
> 3 variable bar define

I agree, the mapping between an name and a behaviour seems cleanest if the
mapping is independant of how both are specified.  Having different mapping
functions:
    : VARIABLE CONSTANT ARRAY  ( etc... )
that be can be built from the more general mechanism is OK with me.
However, those specific mapping functions convey semantic information
above and beyound a mere mapping.  Whether or not you find the
specific mapping functions (don't forget CREATE DOES> and its
variants) sufficent depends on what you are doing.

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]