Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!purdue!bouma
From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: FORTH & SYNTAX ?
Message-ID: <13791@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 91 18:47:17 GMT
References: <1991Mar7.192322.815@cbnewse.att.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 30

In article <1991Mar7.192322.815@cbnewse.att.com> cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) writes:
>If I state a convention that says all defined words (in this dialect)
>that require stack arguments will end up having the number of arguments 
>coded into the name is this syntax?

    No, it is just (as you say) a naming convention.  
 
>examples could be that : asks you for the number of arguments and ;
>produces something like this consistantly:
>
>either	(2)doit   or	doit(2) etc.

   It affects the syntax if : requires to know the number of arguments
   to the defined word. eg.

   : doit 2 ... ;

   the syntax could be described  COLON ID NUMBER IDLIST SEMICOLON


   Self imposed naming conventions are never a bad idea when programming
   in any language.  I am not sure it is a good idea for the language to
   enforce specific conventions, however.  Naming is largely a matter of
   style.  Programmers would probably think forced naming cramps their
   style, (esp Forth programmers).

   Interesting idea, though.  It just might find a place in my new lang-
   uage, "Dictator". 8^)
-- 
Bill <bouma@cs.purdue.edu>