Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewse!cwpjr
From: cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: General Purpose Forth
Summary: Talking past one another, aren't you?
Message-ID: <1991Mar22.144111.3076@cbnewse.att.com>
Date: 22 Mar 91 14:41:11 GMT
References: <3835.27e4e843@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <13985@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 45

In article <13985@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:
> In article <3835.27e4e843@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> schmidtg@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
> >This is a standards issue and I won't argue the point that FORTH standards
> >for things such as floating point have been slow to mature.
> 
>   Funny, most of what I have been talking about is standards issues!
> 
> >     bouma said: 
> >>    Suppose in Forth I want to create a new type which is just a data struc-
> >>    ture of integers and characters.  In doing so I have to think about
> >>    ...
> >
> >This is a matter of control.  I'd prefer to have the control in my own hands
> >rather than leave it to the compiler.  Nothing is more frustrating than a
> > ...
> >interface, such as a communication packet because it is making assumptions
> >about alignment which may not always be true.
> 
>   It is mainly a matter of a standard mechanism for creating new types.

If <Builds Does> doesn't equate to essentially allowing a specific
"contractor" to establish a "Standard" mechanism for defining
structures as defined below then this thread may have merit.

I like structure defining words. I Like <Builds Does>. I can essntially
produce the same results from either, but only <Builds Does> is "standard"

In the analogy here structure defining words are prefab's and <Builds Does>
is standard construction methodology.

Is your argument that having structure defining words standard would be
better than defaulting to multiple "contractor methodologies"?

( ie for building subdivisions vs a dream house )

If so I think you could have stated that without the recource of
challenging other's programming "manhood".

In other words you are playing a too literal semantics game here that
I feel denigrates you more than your protagonist, at best zero sum.

Come on out for standard structure and union words if that's what you mean.
Don't just be meam.

Clyde