Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!jarthur!uunet!abvax!iccgcc!schmidtg
From: schmidtg@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: General Purpose Forth
Message-ID: <3953.27ee286a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 25 Mar 91 21:42:18 GMT
Lines: 79

In article <1991Mar22.144111.3076@cbnewse.att.com>, cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) writes:
> 
> 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 )
> 

Let me elaborate:

The ability to define define 'c' like structures seems to be a common item
in the "base" of many programs.  This usually looks something like

	struct	<structname>
	<size>	field	<fieldname>
		.
		.
		.

and is generally useful.  "struct" above is the "prefab" version and is
useful 90% of the time when I want to deal with structures in FORTH.  I
have seen variations of the above implemented slightly differently in
several FORTH programs.  As this appears to be a common part of the "base"
of many programs, I think it would be nice if there was a FORTH standard
which addressed such optional, but commonly implemented constructs such as
this.  That way, if we all follow the standard, I don't have to understand
each new variation which looks slightly different, yet accomplishes the same
task.  I was arguing that I consider this a "standards issue", not a weakness
in the FORTH language itself.

I'll continue to use CREATE DOES> when building my "dream house".  However,
most of the time I only want to build a tract home and I WANT my tract home
to look exactly like everybody elses because the contractor gives me a better
deal on the maintenance plan.  In that case, I'd really like to have a
standard "struct".

(The above argument also applies to pseudo-standard things such as
CASE statements and the like.)

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

I didn't know that anyone's programming "manhood" was being challenged
in these discussions.  Where did you get that idea?

> 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.

Huh?  Speaking, of semantics, could you be a little more specific here?

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

Hmmm, meaness was certainly not the intent.  By the way, have you read
"Re: Hooray for Dissention"? -- that might help clarify

Greg
--

=============================================================================
Greg Schmidt -> schmidtg@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
=============================================================================
"People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from O.B.I.T"
	-- Peter Lomax
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: No warranty is expressed or implied.  Void where prohibited.
=============================================================================