Re: Forth Frustrations

In article <1176269248.701810.283860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
J Thomas <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It makes logical sense to have a word that doesn't parse. But I can't
see writing

:: DUP * ; S" SQUARE" NAMED!

{ DUP * } "SQUARE" DEFINED

wouldn't be too bad.
But then, why try to reinvent PostScript?


The extra S" " bother me because I'm used to something different.
Maybe with practice I'll see that it's better that way.

It bothers because it is stupid.

We invent
<body> <name> <couple>
because we don't want <couple> to look ahead in the input stream.
Then we implement it using S" that does look ahead in the input stream!

The PostScript like approach only makes sense if strings
are promoted to first class citizens in the language.

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
.