GEnie@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/21/89)
Date: 12-19-89 (23:28) Number: 334 (Echo)
To: ALL Refer#: NONE
From: ZAFAR ESSAK Read: (N/A)
Subj: BASIS 10 FEEDBACK Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Well here goes, more feedback from another BC Forth enthusiast.
Having spent an evening sitting around with a few others and discussing
some of the concerns raised by a reading of BASIS the first realization
is others can come up with some pretty good justifications for their
positions, at least enough to justify having to place definitions in my
"PRELUDE" to accommodate them.
First, I too share Robert Berkey's wish that the FOR...NEXT looping
construct used a word other than NEXT which seems to be at the heart of
the Forth Inner Interpreter, at least conceptually.
And then...
7.0020 " "quote" ( --adr,u)
I don't know the complete history of this word but feel strongly
that if it returned the address of the count it would be more useful.
I realize this will break existing code but since this word has not
been included in a previous standard it is appropriate to consider the
stack effects and resulting usefulness. I am also aware of a number of
other Forth implementations that return the address of the count for
this definition. Before making a formal proposal I would like to hear
what others think about this.
7.0790 BLK
7.0800 BLOCK
7.1790 LOAD
Even though I find sequential file and Stream I/O more useful for
editing source and my applications I read with interest the continued
reference that "If BLK is zero, the input stream is being taken from
TIB". And for LOAD, "an exception exists if u is zero, or is not a
valid block number."
Personally, this has never bothered me and seemed to offer
consistency when thinking of virtual memory, even as a beginner, namely
that 0 implied console input and any number greater than 0 referred
specifically to a BLOCK of virtual memory. And then along came F83
with it's definitions of virtual memory including the numbering of the
first BLOCK as zero, which could be edited but could not be loaded.
Whenever I asked people why this inconsistency all I got were
rationalizations how it provided a great place for comments. Now
really a simple --> or ;S at the beginning of any BLOCK allows the
placement of comments so why should I want to be restricted to one
block of comments right at the beginning of the file; just to say "And
the rest is silence."?
But I am still not clear from BASIS 10 if BLOCKS will be numbered
from 0 up or from 1.
---
* Via Qwikmail 2.01
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated program.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'