Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ... and zen there were objects.
Message-ID: <1705.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 12 Sep 90 02:58:56 GMT
References: <7US58MD@xds1.ferranti.com>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 22

In <7US58MD@xds1.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <1681.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips) writes:
> > 	pushing message arguments and messages
> > 	selecting the object which is to recieve the message
> > 	sending the message
> 
> > Having active message names muddles all three of those steps.
> 
> 	No, just the first. And only if you push messages which is
> 	pretty much only if you want an "apply" operation. Pushing
> 	messages is a damn rare case, and when you do it you can use
> 	a word that returns any message it's passed (like ' does
> 	in normal Forth).

Hmm... Active message names definitely muddles the first *and* third.
Or rather, merges them.  It muddles the second if you are doing an
apply.  How rare that is isn't really the issue, though I think it
is (and should be) much less rare than you think.

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us    Daily:  {uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp