Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!motcsd!mcdcup!mcdchg!att!cbnewse!cwpjr
From: cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Files vs Blocks
Summary: Not my BLOCKS!
Message-ID: <1990Oct11.162619.21643@cbnewse.att.com>
Date: 11 Oct 90 16:26:19 GMT
References: <9010101326.AA20001@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25

In article <9010101326.AA20001@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes:
> I hate blocks.  The are much too restrictive.  People tend to omit
> comments and visual structuring when using blocks, because they don't
> have the flexibility to easily move stuff around when they have to
> go back and add something in the middle.
> 
> I think it is funny when people claim that blocks enforce the discipline
> of short definitions.  This is funny because everything else about Forth
> tends not to enforce discipline, instead leaving it up to the programmer
> to choose.

I saw blocks as a toll, not a discipline....
> 
> I think blocks actually increase the average size of definitions, because
> you can't easily go back and factor out a plausible subdefinition, due
> to not having room to add the extra ": name  ( xx yy -- zz )  ;" and
> whatever commentary is appropriate.
> 
> Mitch

But when I used 'em ( 80-82 ) I had to use the discipline of my
MBASIC training 8^) ( you know, leave 9 blocks between each one used! )
to avoid the "RENUM BLOCK" phenominon! 8^) |^) 8^)

Clyde 8^)