Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dwpst From: dwpst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Douglas W Philips) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Puzzle? What Puzzle? Summary: Melting Pot? Message-ID: <36062@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 7 Sep 90 21:33:30 GMT References: <12511@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <1677.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Reply-To: dwpst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Douglas W Philips) Organization: Disposed users association Lines: 22 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Why? What's wrong with: > > "The following words may not be implementable on all hardware. > If implemented, they shall have the following semantics." > >This wordset can contain CHANGESTACKSIZE, CHANGEHEAPSIZE, ALLOCATEHEAP, >and so on. I'm sure you can think of lots more. Even if the resulting >code won't run on Forth machines, it will run on more conventional machines >and be portable between them. Are you saying its an all or nothing proposition? What if you could change heap sizes but not stack sizes? Would that qualify as compliance with the specification for the "catch-all" wordset? If you allow piecemeal compliance how does the program tell whice pieces are in place? Yes, I can think of ways to do it, but not terribly clean or esthetic ones. -Doug --- Preferred: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us. Other: uunet!willett!dwp