Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!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: What's WRONG with Forth?
Message-ID: <2586.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 6 Apr 91 02:24:57 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 32


 Date: 04-03-91 (07:05)              Number: 1746 of 1747 (Echo)
   To: ANIL RODRIX                   Refer#: 1716
 From: STEVE WHEELER                   Read: NO
 Subj: (RE)DEFINITION OF NUMBERS     Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
 Conf: FORTH (58)                 Read Type: GENERAL (+)

 Regarding redefined numbers ...

 When I first ported F83 to Vesta's SBC's, I did a straightforward port
 with minimal changes.  Among the words in the FORTH vocabulary were 0,
 1, 2, and 3.  I made a special revision just to pull those words out of
 the dictionary because of a problem they caused with a customer's code
 ... their action when entered in the input stream differs from 4, 5, 6,
 etc. in that there is no effect on DPL.

 I consider this sufficient reason to distrust any numbers defined as
 part of the dictionary.  Certainly, there can be reasons for doing such
 things, but not just for convenience and saving space.  If you need such
 constants to save space when you compile your kernel, make them
 headerless (I did).  You then not only save space in your kernel, but
 you don't confuse your users.

 - wheels

 NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth!
 <<<>>>
-----
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