Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!idacom!rob
From: rob@idacom.uucp (Rob Chapman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: NOT
Message-ID: <1991Feb25.204804.4305@idacom.uucp>
Date: 25 Feb 91 20:48:04 GMT
References: <9102221955.AA14829@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: rob@idacom.UUCP (Rob Chapman)
Organization: IDACOM, a dvision of HP
Lines: 18

> 0 CONSTANT FALSE
> FALSE NOT CONSTANT TRUE
> I think that FALSE 0= CONSTANT TRUE makes more sense. And will always work.
> Daniel C.  Sobral                                                               
 What about an even more obvious FALSE FALSE = CONSTANT TRUE.  Also an aside
 to the ANSI committee: If there is interest in simplifying the wordsets,
 wouldn't it make sense to remove (or move to an extended wordset,) the
 following words: 0= 0< 0> 1+ 1- 2* 2/ and possibly other words which are
 really a simple combination of atomic words?  I understand the origins of
 Forth having a simple compiler and thereby putting the onus on the programmer
 to do the optimizing, but with the ANSI standard, a larger crowd of people
 will be using the language and they need not be burdened with the minor
 optimizations which clutter up a beautifully simple (or simply beautiful)
 language.  They (and we) will expect these optimizations to be done by the
 compiler.  I can see this as a new market which the vendors will have a lot
 of room to expand into.

Rob