Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!ncc!idacom!rob
From: rob@idacom.uucp (Rob Chapman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: BASIS ?? - Comments...
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.083935.6262@idacom.uucp>
Date: 6 Feb 91 08:39:35 GMT
References: <9102041442.AA19094@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: rob@idacom.UUCP (Rob Chapman)
Organization: IDACOM, a division of HP
Lines: 13

>useful in another wordset. (at least, not in the same of SEE -- A subroutine
>threaded Forth can have EMIT? but cannot have SEE.)
>Daniel C. Sobral

 All my implementations of Forth are subroutine threaded with inline
 optimization.  They all have SEE.  If you can write compilers, you
 can write decompilers.  If you can write optimizers, you can write
 deoptimizers.  Besides, SEE serves as a great test/debug tool when
 implementing new Forths.  I couldn't/wouldn't live without it.
 (I find it useful to have SEE accept an address on the stack if there
 is no word following it in the input stream.)

Rob