Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!purdue!bouma
From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Interpret/compile consistency
Message-ID: <11788@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 21 Sep 90 23:18:10 GMT
References: <9009211313.AA26438@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 19

In article <9009211313.AA26438@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes:
>Not any more.  I fixed them so that they do work if interpreted.  It is
>remarkably easy to do; the trick is to switch to compile state when the
>beginning of a control structure is encountered, and execute the temporary
>definition when that control structure is completed.  I wrote a paper about

   Just curious.
   Does something like [ IF THEN ] work?  
   What about?   [ IF [ IF THEN ] THEN ] 
   How about?   IF [ : ... ; ] THEN
   Or?   IF [ : ... [ : ... ; ] ... ; ] THEN    8^)

   I once made my system work for all of the above and more. Yes, it was
   easy to implement, the problem was error recovery! I found that making
   forth COMPLETELY consistent was actually quite painful to do right.
   It may be nice not to have to explain the superficial inconsistencies
   to a beginner, though, as you say. You got a paper out of that!?
-- 
Bill <bouma@cs.purdue.edu>      Just ask the Axis   He knows everything