Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: TCOM & DEFERRED WORDS
Message-ID: <209.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 90 01:33:38 GMT
Organization: Latest Link in ForthNet Chain
Lines: 35


 Date: 01-05-90 (00:06)              Number: 2752 (Echo)
   To: ZAFAR ESSAK                   Refer#: 2744
 From: KENNETH O'HESKIN                Read: NO
 Subj: TCOM & DEFERRED WORDS         Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 ZE>KO'H> Deferred words ... are largely a programmer's convenience during
 ZE>      development 

 ZE>                                                            I can also
 ZE>come up with a number of uses for deferred words that aren't just for 
 ZE>convenience during development.

         I didn't mean that to sound glib! I should have said for ME
         they are largely used as a tool for blocking out ideas that
         havn't yet been coded, or for using words whose source code
         hasn't yet been loaded (for whatever reason). More than a
         mere convenience, they are an indispensible tool and a typical
         file of mine may have a couple dozen Deferred definitions.

         But quite often they are temporary, and once I've decided
         what a given word will do I'll un-defer it. In the case of
         using TCOM I found none of the deferred words were really
         necessary for that particular project, and it was the easiest
         way to get the compiler to behave. Eventually I will still have
         to get to the bottom of TCOM's eccentricities, since I'll be
         using it a lot.

 ---
  ~ EZ-Reader 1.14 ~ 

 NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886   
-----
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'