Re: RfD - Enhanced local variable syntax (long)

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:03:32 GMT, mhx@xxxxxx (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:

18 floats []floc

Lets examine what I think you mean:

: foo { a b | 18 floats []floc -- d }
...
;

Now the compiler has to know that 18 and floats are not names.
Redefinition may generate a warning but is not an error. I like
the idea that the expression for the size of the expression is
syntactically bounded. How would your proposal handle the below?

6 constant poo
8 value goo

: foo { a b | poo floats []floc goo cells []doo -- d }
...
;

I say it's ambiguous (are poo and goo local var names?), whereas
the proposal is not.

: foo { a b | floc[ poo floats ] doo[ goo cells ] -- d }
...
;

But to get there someone has to go through the process of
standardising TO and friends for FLOATS. I'm not prepared to
do that yet. There isn't an FVALUE yet, so over to ... you?

I wouldn't live without it, but if I'm the only one, why standardize?

Chicken and egg - there's no champion. I'm with you on wanting
FVALUE, but we don't have a reference implementation with a long
history. Perhaps someone can explain why it didn't make it into ANS.

Stephen


--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@xxxxxxxxxxxx
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RfD - Enhanced local variable syntax (long)
    ... Now the compiler has to know that 18 and floats are not names. ... I say it's ambiguous (are poo and goo local var names?), ... standardising TO and friends for FLOATS. ... There isn't an FVALUE yet, ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: RfD - Enhanced local variable syntax (long)
    ... standardising TO and friends for FLOATS. ... There isn't an FVALUE yet, ... but we don't have a reference implementation with a long ... there must at least be two conflicting implementations. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)