Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!amdahl!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!raino
From: raino@td2cad.intel.com (Rodger Raino)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: FORTH or SmallTalk
Keywords: SmallTalk infix
Message-ID: <1123@td2cad.intel.com>
Date: 9 Sep 88 17:35:44 GMT
References: <484@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>
Reply-To: raino@td2cad.UUCP (Rodger Raino)
Organization: Intel TD, Santa Clara CA
Lines: 20

In article <484@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> gandreas@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Glenn Andreas) writes:
>What's wrong with expanding Forth to include some of the
>things that you want in a programming environment (such as a
>pre-processor).  And hey, maybe some other people will think this is neat
>and want it too.


Nothing is wrong with doing that.  In fact that is the central idea
behind the language.  But there is a big difference between what
you *can* do and what you *must* do.  Everything is permitted but very
little is required.

The Colonel says the stack underflow
Don't worry, be happy.

rodger
-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
i know i'm a bad speller, don't waste FlameWidth pointing out old news
intel agrees with this, but not necessarly anything above the line.
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .