Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!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: Comments on START:
Message-ID: <1759.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 19 Sep 90 02:46:23 GMT
References: <12658@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 25

In <12658@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes:
> II. Inline Data Handlers
>    
>    Some are disturbed by what they regard as the dual pre/postfix 
>    nature of Forth. There is a very simple rule for making sense of 
>    this:
>    
>    RULE:  You know what the interpreter is going to do with a string.
>           If that's not what you want done, you must precede the 
>           string by a handler. 
>    
>           (Simiarly numbers in a dictionary body which are not 
>           addresses to be executed are preceded by a handler.)

The RULE you state is good for deciding how to write more prefix words.
However, the reason your RULE fails to quell the disquiet is because of an
equivocation about "the dual pre/postfix nature of Forth."  As you have
pointed out extremely effectively in previous messages, one of Forth's
strong points is in being a "language lab".  I have no qualms with
an increasing proliferation of prefix words in the derived application.
My concern is with the duality in the core of Forth itself.

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