Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!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: 8 Sep 90 16:25:26 GMT References: <12511@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <1677.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> <36062@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 21 In article <36062@unix.cis.pitt.edu> dwpst@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Douglas W Philips) writes: > >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? No. This wordset would not be guaranteed to be implemented to any degree on any implementation. All this would do would be to specify what the semantics of these words would be when present. > If you allow piecemeal compliance how does the program tell which pieces > are in place? You'll say "132 load" and it'll come back with "CHANGESTACKSIZE?". > Yes, I can think of ways to do it, but not terribly clean or > esthetic ones. If you don't do it the results will be even less esthetic. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com