Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: LANGUAGE OF ANS FORTH
Message-ID: <184.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jan 90 16:04:53 GMT
Organization: Latest Link in ForthNet Chain
Lines: 28


 Date: 12-22-89 (00:42)              Number: 335 (Echo)
   To: IAN GREEN                     Refer#: 333
 From: SYSOP (ECFB/SHIFRIN)            Read: NO
 Subj: LANGUAGE OF ANS FORTH         Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 IG>   To be more clear what I guess I want is a EBNF of the primitives for 
 IG>Forth, not the whole show. After all Forth, as I understand it, is built

 Ian, none of the Forth primitives affects the syntax of the
 language, believe it or not. The closest we get at the primitive
 level is BRANCH and 0BRANCH which is typical, but non-standard,
 or MARK and RESOLVE which is semi-standard.  None of these
 actually imposes a syntax, though they each can affect or imply a
 flow of control.

 For this to approach making sense, you have to understand that
 most Forths implement a virtual machine, one part of which is
 typically the IP or instruction pointer. The traditional Forth
 "inner interpreter" modifies the IP based on words like BRANCH
 which carry along an address offset.

 Does any of this help? probably not.
 ---
  * QDeLuxe 1.10 #214s
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated program.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'