Mitch.Bradley@ENG.SUN.COM (05/29/91)
> If you want your program to be really portable, you better figure > out how to write the source code with printable characters. Obviously, I meant "without", not "with". Mitch.Bradley@Eng.Sun.COM
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne (055908)) (05/30/91)
In article <9105291726.AA13700@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Mitch.Bradley%ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV writes: >> If you want your program to be really portable, you better figure >> out how to write the source code with printable characters. > >Obviously, I meant "without", not "with". > >Mitch.Bradley@Eng.Sun.COM No, I think you DID mean that you want to write source code WITH printable characters - It's kind of hard to read source code that doesn't have any printable characters :-). (Wrote this one too late at nite?) Anyway, the KEY/EKEY compromise seems MOSTLY ok. I worry about the dependencies tho - most parts of a "Standard" system will use KEY for input, which means that it may be difficult to use standard/core words to do input of odd characters. I thinking that it may be a neat idea to use vectored execution, and perhaps swap between use of KEY and EKEY within applications. Or maybe that makes life even more complicated. -- Christopher Browne cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca University of Ottawa Master of System Science Program
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/06/91)
In article <1991May30.002016.22178@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne (055908)) writes: > >Anyway, the KEY/EKEY compromise seems MOSTLY ok. I worry about the >dependencies tho - most parts of a "Standard" system will use KEY for >input, which means that it may be difficult to use standard/core words >to do input of odd characters. I thinking that it may be a neat >idea to use vectored execution, and perhaps swap between use of KEY and >EKEY within applications. Or maybe that makes life even more complicated. Vectored execution IS the way to go. However, in such a system, you would not "swap between the us3e of KEY & EKEY"...you would always use KEY, just put EKEY (or whatever KEY-primitive) in the vector. In fact, you have to be in such systems to never place a primitive which, in turn, calls KEY into the KEY vector. That's generates a recursive overrun... overrun... overrun... overrun... <AAACH!>...eat into data stack... overrun... overrun... <AARGH!>...eat into dictionary... over.. o... ... ... ... <die>
Mitch.Bradley@ENG.SUN.COM (06/08/91)
> >to do input of odd characters. I thinking that it may be a neat > >idea to use vectored execution, and perhaps swap between use of KEY and > >EKEY within applications. Or maybe that makes life even more complicated. > Vectored execution IS the way to go. I'm not sure I agree. Modal behavior is troublesome, because in order to be sure you're getting what you want at a given time, you need to know the history of how you got there. Also, specifying deferred execution in the standard opens up a whole can of worms, such as how do you find out the current referent of a vector (so you can save and restore it, for instance). Getting the necessary "package deal" through the committee would be a challenging task at this late date. The committee is totally burned out, and wants to get the process over with. Mitch.Bradley@Eng.Sun.COM