Re: RfD: Legacy Word
- From: Peter Knaggs <pjk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:40:34 +0100
Ed wrote:
Peter Knaggs wrote:
To do this you have to keep a track of the definition history, so you
know which words were defined after to target word. Most systems do
this by using the address of the definition, even when using multiple
threads. However, other systems are viable (hash code, code buckets,
and such) where such a history must be recorded separately purely to
support FORGET. The TC did not wish to promote any particular
implementation method, this is why FORGET was demoted to an optional EXT
word and marked as obsolete in the '94 document.
The topic of MARKER vs. FORGET was discussed not too long ago
on c.l.f. For each claim that FORGET couldn't restore this or that,
wasn't efficient etc., supporters provided evidence to the contrary.
FORGET works and works well.
Fair enough, but that does not negate the fact that the '94 document marked FORGET as obsolete.
.
- References:
- RfD: Legacy Word
- From: Peter Knaggs
- Re: RfD: Legacy Word
- From: m_l_g3
- Re: RfD: Legacy Word
- From: Peter Knaggs
- Re: RfD: Legacy Word
- From: Ed
- RfD: Legacy Word
- Prev by Date: Re: RfD: :NAME
- Next by Date: Re: RfD: Legacy Word
- Previous by thread: Re: RfD: Legacy Word
- Next by thread: Re: RfD: Legacy Word
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|