Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Puzzle? What Puzzle? Message-ID: Date: 7 Sep 90 02:00:15 GMT References: <12511@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <1677.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 14 In article <1677.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) writes: > propose one). It seems kind of silly to propose an extended wordset for > one word ( CHANGESTACKSIZE ), but equally silly to have a catchall wordset > instead. 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. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com