Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!rc6.urc.tue.nl!eutws1.win.tue.nl
From: wsbusup@eutws1.win.tue.nl (Jan Stout)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Use explicit arguments
Message-ID: <387@rc6.urc.tue.nl>
Date: 29 Jan 91 14:01:00 GMT
Sender: USENET News System <news@urc.tue.nl>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 49


FS: Well, since you asked, I'll make a few comments.
   >COLROW
     I don't like the name.  I presume it is to set a cursor  position on the
  screen.  I prefer the arguments to be ( row col - )  rather than ( col row -
  ).  I could go along with the name TAB for  this.  Why not AT?  Anyway, let's
  not require it!  If possible, let's  remove it altogether. If it must be kept,
  let's not use the ugly name.

How can you expect people to go along with your ( row col -- ) proposal if
you don't give some example of the benefits of this factoring. Ie what is
wrong with using the standard math (x,y) positioning? Perhaps you can name
a word that uses fixed columns variable rows, so that it can easily be
factored in N TAB/AT, the same way DO's argumentorder could be justified.
( so we have : SPACES   0 ?DO SPACE LOOP ; instead of 
             : SPACES   0 SWAP ?DO SPACE LOOP ; )

FS: >"This Standard does not require that each word be provided in 
    > executable form.
   This may the thing I like most (dislike least, perhaps) about the  ANSI
   standard.  It's the way I deal with DO LOOP in Pygmy.  (Thanks to  Robert
   Berkey) it's available in source form to load for anyone who  wants it, but it
   doesn't burden my system.
  
Again I don't understand your enthousiasm for FOR/NEXT over DO/LOOP.
True enough using DO/LOOP often involves some stackacrobatics to get the
right parameters, but then again DO/LOOP enables easier indexing 
"in the loop" with I so will probably execute faster.
As an example:

: TYPE   SWAP OVER +
   ?DO  I C@ EMIT LOOP ;
instead of
: TYPE   FOR C@+ EMIT NEXT ;
with : C@+   1+ DUP 1- C@ ;

FS:  > Toronto
  I want the decimal point to indicate
double precision (not floating point). 

Do indeed you use that many dpliterals???
My opinion is that the occasional use of doubles shouldn't imply an alternative
syntax (use of .) that outside the forthcommunity always meant fpformat.
I'd say use 0 0 for your 0. or if you've sprayed a lot of 0. in your code
define a constant ie 0 0 2CONSTANT D0 and use D0 instead of 0. ...

Expect to hear your replies:)

Jan Stout