Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!apple!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!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: Data Structures
Message-ID: <1716.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 12 Sep 90 03:26:41 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 23


 Date: 09-08-90 (10:53)              Number: 484 (Echo)
   To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
 From: DARRYL BIECH                    Read: (N/A)
 Subj: CONTROL STRUCTURES            Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 Being new to FORTH, but experienced in several other languages, a couple
 of things puzzle me about the FORTH strings and control structures
 proposals/debates:
 >
 1.) What is wrong with using the three conventional looping constructs 
     DO FOR, DO WHILE, and DO UNTIL, and combining them with IF THEN
     (ELSE) to create the more complicated control structures that I
     noticed at the X3J14 Vancouver Conference. Using iterative and
     "decide before the body of the loop" and "decide after the body of
     the loop" constructs are enough for any language.
     (I am referring to technical comment C89-279.1)
  2.) Why not have counted strings that are optionally null-terminated?

 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886   
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us