Re: DOES> (again)
Albert van der Horst <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The analysis is much easier if done object oriented.
The standard require that DOES> results in remembering something.
An extra data item! So you can't ever accommodate that by
your standard headers if all fields are used up.
What are you referring to? We already know, from example, that in ITC
the only header field needed for DOES> is the code field.
- Re: inner product space
... >Are you sure you're not just remembering this backwards? ... go for "standard" definitions. ... So apparently we need a supreme court of standards. ...
- Re: Pay at pump - selfish drivers
... I can't believe there are that many people who aren't usng a standard ... credit card. ... There plenty of people who have difficulty in remembering ...
- Re: Image resolution
... For my client on her PC, I think it would have been Standard which is ... I must have changed it before without remembering because it ... What was Adobe PDF options preset to by default? ...
- Re: Jonesforth and Hayes CORE tests
... My conclusion was based on this exchange between Albert van der Horst ... The standard allows DOES> to fill in a pointer, ...
- Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable?
... Albert van der Horst wrote: ... Hans Bezemerwrote: ... VARIABLE CONSTANT etc the standard respects that those ... It is readable if you know that CONSTANT defines a pre-initialized data space with a semantics that can be replaced. ...