rob@idacom.uucp (Rob Chapman) (09/26/90)
>compiler than to write LISP code got me thinking. If he'd left the FORTH >language available under the LISP language (which, in fact, he might just >have done) I think it would still be FORTH. >What do y'all think? I've been toying with the idea of doing this with DOS and botForth on the PC. The input stream is interpreted by looking up parsed strings in the dictionary. If it doesn't exist, try to convert it to a number. Failing this, pass the rest of the input stream on to DOS to be processed as a DOS command. The prompt could even be C:>. As a matter of fact, if you only typed in DOS commands, you wouldn't realize that there was a Forth running! (When was the last you checked your command line?) Q. to DOS programmers: Is this possible? Q. to UNIX programmers: Is this possible? Rob
rvn@forth.mlb.semi.harris.com (Rick VanNorman) (09/27/90)
in <1990Sep26.084456.8790@idacom.uucp>, rob@idacom.uucp (Rob Chapman) writes: > I've been toying with the idea of doing this with DOS and botForth on the > PC. The input stream is interpreted by looking up parsed strings in the > dictionary. If it doesn't exist, try to convert it to a number. Failing > this, pass the rest of the input stream on to DOS to be processed as a DOS > command. The prompt could even be C:>. As a matter of fact, if you only > typed in DOS commands, you wouldn't realize that there was a Forth running! > (When was the last you checked your command line?) I tried this for about 2 days last winter (in Florida? ya gotta be kidding!) and decided that it was not going to be ok without redefining some of the Forth vocabulary -- there were too many overlaps into DOS (such as TYPE and ERASE) to feel comfortable. I did this by using an extension in the interpreter that, upon failing number conversion, would try to execute the remainder of the input line as a DOS command. It worked pretty well, but I decided not to use it. Also, the terminal environment that I use for my target-resident Forth for the RTX 2000 series maps some common DOS commands. So, while I am executing on the RTX (using the PC for a "smart" terminal/host) I can type "DIR" or "CD \something" or any of the commands that I defined. Imagine this interface with full DOS access for anything it doesn't recognize!! You get to run a Forth engine at full speed, ignoring the stupid DOS environment until you need it for something, and that something would be automatically routed to DOS. I don't know -- I think I'll keep the DOS commands seperate but equal, and let Forth complain when a word isn't defined. Rick VanNorman Staff Engineer, Software Development RTX Marketing Harris Semiconductor Melbourne, Florida, USA All opinions expressed by me, real or otherwise, are my own.
John.Passaniti@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Passaniti) (09/27/90)
> From: rob@idacom.uucp (Rob Chapman) [Idea of grafting a transparent FORTH interpreter as a shell to MS-DOS] > Q. to DOS programmers: Is this possible? > Q. to UNIX programmers: Is this possible? Not only possible, but a damn good idea. Surely, it would not be a shell for everyone, but for FORTH fiends, I think it would be ideal. In fact, I imagine that it could be added (fairly easily) to existing FORTH systems by rewriting the interpreter. -- *%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%* John Passaniti - via FidoNet node 1:260/230 UUCP: ...!rochester!ur-valhalla!rochgte!201!John.Passaniti INTERNET: John.Passaniti@f201.n260.z1.FIDONET.ORG *%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*