Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a684
From: a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: CASE
Message-ID: <4424@mindlink.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 91 21:33:51 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 23


ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (JACK WOEHR) writes:

> So true, Frank! The main thing that troubles me about adding  CASE to Forth
> is that there are many possible CASE constructs that  are equally worthy of
> the name. One that I particularly liked CASEd  counted strings!, e.g.
> 
>     : FOO " this" ;
>     : BAR " that" ;
>     : ZOTZ CASE " this " OF DO-THIS ENDOF CASE " that" OF DO-THAT ...
> 
> So adding CASE to the Standard, while gratifyingly adding the  X3J14 sanction
> to the form of CASE coincidentally implemented in  Vesta Forth-83+, seems an
> act of lese-majeste against the Forth  imperative not to name something once
> and for all that is a matter of personal taste and implementation strategy.

If you think it's a better CASE than the one presently favoured, try to
convince the others to accept it.  Otherwise, if the present one is chosen for
whatever reasons (in common use, simple, etc), then rename your favourite CASE
to $CASE (or whatever you prefer) and add it to your programs.

I'd rather see one standard--even if it's limited--CASE method instead of
dozens of incompatible ones.