Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!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: Conditionals ! Message-ID: <2470.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> Date: 7 Mar 91 03:41:50 GMT Organization: (n.) to be organized. But that's not important right now. Lines: 40 To: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [BRAD] Refer#: 1389 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: OPERATING SYSTEMS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) Brad writes: >If I were voting, I'd go with [IF] [ELSE] [THEN] >Are these words nestable >Can these words range across multiple screens linked with --> >Can these words be used both in compile and interpret state 1. I support this, it seems reasonable. LMI isn't going to draw a line in the sand over the naming ".IF" etc. 2. They are nestable in the current version of LMI systems, but they weren't nestable in their first incarnations, so a lot of users don't take advantage of the nesting. 3. They don't span screens linked by --> in LMI systems, but they will work for collections of screens loaded with THRU (the implementation of .IF in our systems is basically to call WORD repeatedly looking for .ELSE or .THEN, with a little extra logic to support recursion). 4. .IF etc. are immediate and work in either interpreting or compiling mode. However if you want to control compilation with a flag you have to make that flag IMMEDIATE, obviously, e.g. TRUE CONSTANT DEBUG? IMMEDIATE ... : FOOBAR ... DEBUG? .IF ... .THEN ... ; Ray Duncan, LMI NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You *cannot* reply to the author using e-mail. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp