Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!mimsy!nocusuhs!yoshi
From: yoshi@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (Dojun Yoshikami)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Problems with ALSO/ONLY
Message-ID: <1991Mar4.160636.23603@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>
Date: 4 Mar 91 16:06:36 GMT
References: <9102151422.AA01056@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: National Naval Medical Center
Lines: 23

In article <9102151422.AA01056@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes:
>Disclaimer: I don't dislike ALSO/ONLY; I use them every day.  But they
>do have some problems:
>
> [lines deleted]

I found that the Also/Only mechanism is misleading regarding its true actions.
We wound up redefining ALSO so that the words behave more like words on
a stack.  For instance, to put somehting on the return stack is >R , so
logically to put something on the "Vocabulary" stack would be >V.
We also add the words VDUP, VDROP, V@, V>, for the same reason.  Conceptaully
this is much nicer, as it gives the Forthwright some idea regarding
the vocabulary stack's behavior.  One of the suggestions was to write this
up as a proposal for the ANSI Forth, but none of us have the time.  What
do you think of it?

DY 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami  :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: yoshikami@usuhsb.ucc.usuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
May the Forth be with you! | Bitnet  : yoshikami@usuhsb.bitnet
***  !!xob X*NU V METSYS T&TA eht ni renosirp dleh gnieb m`I  !pleH  !pleH  ***
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=