Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!cornell!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: Floating Point
Message-ID: <1657.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 3 Sep 90 04:08:12 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 23

Category 10,  Topic 8
Message 41        Sun Sep 02, 1990
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 09:59 EDT
 
Sorry, I don't buy it.  It's easy to come up with glib rules to circumvent any
problem, but usually these rules are not practical. For example: the old rule
for writing "don't care" code with LEAVE was to use it _only_ at the end of a
do loop, e.g.

    ... DO ... ... IF LEAVE THEN LOOP ...

which works for both 79 and 83 standard, but how many people _really_ program
this way?  And I maintain that this glib rule is much easier to practice than
your proposed floating-point guideline.

I don't think you can avoid mixing data types on the stack, considering that
it is Forth's primary working area.  How many of us have managed to avoid
mixing single- and double-precision numbers on the stack?

- Brad
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us