...C: orig|dest -- orig|dest ) ( -- false ) With this, things like Baden's COND WHENS (used in Miser) can then readily be defined. I think, given these, Miser can also be portably defined: : CS-RESOLVE ( C: marker origs-- ) BEGIN cs-mark? WHILE POSTPONE THEN REPEAT ; : CS-...

... With this, things like Baden's COND WHENS (used in Miser) can then readily be defined. I think, given these, Miser can also be portably defined: : CS-RESOLVE ( C: marker origs-- ) BEGIN ...'ll have a closer look off-line. I did post a "portable" version of Miser that relied on CS-PUSH/POP however yours manages to avoid it. (I ...

...( C: orig|dest -- orig|dest ) ( -- false ) With this, things like Baden's COND WHENS (used in Miser) can then readily be defined. I think, given these, Miser can also be portably defined: : CS-RESOLVE ( C: marker origs-- ) BEGIN cs-mark? WHILE POSTPONE THEN REPEAT ; : CS-UNDER-RESOLVE...

... [...] It's limited to conditionals which bump the count. Should one encounter Miser code like: CASE ( any test ) IF ( DROP) ... ELSE ENDCASE it ... example I used IF but any conditional or sequence that left an 'orig' may be used in Miser. All these would fail in solution 2 because they don't bump the count. ...

... in experimentation is another matter. At this stage it would probably be of little benefit to eliminate the non-data CFS stack. At best it might make some work-arounds possible, allowing constructs like Miser to be built. It wouldn't fix all issues, and IMO a more comprehensive solution is needed. I should mention some don't agree there is any problem and hence no need for change. I...

....com> wrote: [...] It's limited to conditionals which bump the count. Should one encounter Miser code like: CASE ( any test ) IF ( DROP) ... ELSE ENDCASE it will fail.... example I used IF but any conditional or sequence that left an 'orig' may be used in Miser. All these would fail in solution 2 because they don't bump the count. I think...

...Schemes involving a count are unlikely to work. Miser uses (and encourages) existing conditionals to effect the...conditionals which bump the count. Should one encounter Miser code like: CASE ( any test ) IF (... left an 'orig' may be used in Miser. All these would fail in solution 2 because...things like Baden's COND WHENS (used in Miser) can then readily be defined.

On 4 Jul, 03:39, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: [...] Schemes involving a count are unlikely to work. Miser uses (and encourages) existing conditionals to effect the case construct. That's its simplicity and flexibility. You can use *any* conditional as long as there's an orig left to resolve. Yes solution 1 is flawed with the redefinition of ELSE. But have you ...

...'m not sure a truly portable Miser can be done given the current ... with IF THEN etc. Note that Miser allows IF for "user-defined" case... a count are unlikely to work. Miser uses (and encourages) existing conditionals to ...rendering the standard CASE ultimately inflexible. ... Miser probably doesn't need to be...the issue of tools extends beyond Miser because forth should let users do...

...> data stack (if any). That would then make your Miser's case ANS Forth compliant and so portable ... control stack I'm not sure a truly portable Miser can be done given the current CS wordset. I ... ANS CASE. It might be fun sometime to add your Miser CASE words to it, but I found solution 1 hard enough for now. Miser probably doesn't need to be portable. As long as ...