Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: DEFER
Message-ID: <9104091315.AA16877@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 9 Apr 91 02:09:45 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 31

>>> Is there DEFER in BASIS 15.
>>>
>>No.  I proposed it at the last meeting, but the proposal was defeated 3-8.
>>
> Mitch, how does the standards team propose to handle vectored execution
> and forward compilation in a clean and easy manner, while also doing it in a
> standard manner?

The same way it's done in FIG Forth and in every other Forth implementation
that doesn't have DEFER :

        VARIABLE 'FOO    : FOO  'FOO @ EXECUTE  ;

Obviously, this is a bit more trouble than

        DEFER FOO

but I can't stand up and make a strong case that the old way is totally
horrible, or that the DEFER way gives you any inherent capability that
the old way doesn't have.  I have to agree with the claim that DEFER
is just "syntactic sugar", and not additional functionality.


> (Read:  This *WILL* be a portion of my comments to the TC)

Please do; I will be happy to argue your position to the TC.  I like
DEFER quite a bit, and I use it frequently.  However, I can guarantee
you that the minimalist camp is well represented on the committee, and
it will be a hard sell.

Mitch Bradley, wmb@Eng.Sun.COM