Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Vocabularies
Message-ID: <1671.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 3 Sep 90 04:08:44 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 35

Category 18,  Topic 92
Message 45        Thu Aug 30, 1990
W.FEDERICI                   at 21:10 PDT
 
. Consider typing the following two lines into your Forth system:
 .
 .    create new-word  0 ,
 .    : word-maker    create  0 , ;
 .
 . Since CREATE is a prefix operator, we can clearly see that, in the
 . first line, the parameter of create is  "new-word", and in the
 . second line the parameter is " 0" -- right?
 . Now, I know we can construct long explanations why CREATE
 . "behaves differently" in these two cases, but I think
 . shorter explanations result if we keep in mind that CREATE
 . actually reads the input stream.  Operators in conventional
 . languages don't do this -- the compiler does it for them, which
 . is why we can write things in 'C' like
 .     int  /* strangely placed comment */ myint
 . yet we don't expect Forth to accept
 .     create ( 'nother comment ) my-word
 .
 . ( I'm beginning to regret my offhand comment that started this,
 . because I have ended up making lengthy commentary on something
 . that seems to me almost trivial -- that Forth just isn't a
 . conventional language and that discussing it in conventional
 . terms can mislead.  Forth's "distributed compiler", for lack of
 . a better term, is rather an oddity amongst languages, and it
 . determines several of the strengths and weaknesses of the
 . Forth approach. )
 .
 . - Wilson
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us