Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS TC - Between the cracks
Message-ID: <2305.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 4 Feb 91 12:35:42 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 38

Category 10,  Topic 28
Message 106       Sat Feb 02, 1991
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 23:38 EST
 
Good list, Mitch.  Here's another:

5) You can't execute control structures interpretively.
   (This also applies to many implemenations of TO.)

Of course, you can't do this in any current Forth except yours and
 John Hayes' (to my knowledge).  This is something I miss from STOIC
 (yes, I once used STOIC), and it's one of the _hardest_ things for
 me to get across to a new Forth programmer.  Another stumbling block
 for new programmers:

6) You can't compile in-line string arguments.

Meaning, arguments which are taken from the input stream.  It's
 painful to explain, to a neophyte who's tired of typing INCLUDE"
 commands, why you can't write a shorthand word
   : L  INCLUDE" TEST.FTH" ;

The first has been solved (but good luck getting it into ANSI).  The
 only solution to the second that I'm aware of would use the STOIC
 method of passing string arguments.

Food for thought.
 - Brad

P.S. would you clarify your item 3) "no convenient way to compile a
 string within a definition"?


-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You cannot Reply to the author
using email.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uun