Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma
From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: New Directions: Forth is not postfix
Message-ID: <6801@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 5 Feb 90 16:19:25 GMT
References: <284.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP> <2.71SW6xds13@ficc.uu.net> <51523@bbn.COM> <25C9CFEE.22487@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 20

In article <25C9CFEE.22487@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> ns@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Nick Solntseff) writes:
>we would be able to write

>      <condition> THEN <true part> ELSE <false part>

>-- a much better construct!

True, but you need a keyword after <false part> to resolve the forward
jump around the false part when the condition is true.
How about:
	IF	-->  THEN	( as you propose )
	THEN    -->  ENDIF	( as existed in figForth )
	NOOP	-->  IF		( a dummy for clarity )
so one gets:

	IF  <condition>  THEN  <true part>  ELSE <false part>  ENDIF

Tom Almy
toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply