... 2008. http://www.euroforth.org I have separated the enhanced local variable syntax from the local buffer proposal. This proposal is about local buffers. Stephen RfD - Local buffers, v4 ======================= Stephen Pelc - 14 September 2007 20080811 Brought into line with LocalsExt4.txt. 20070914 Split local buffers to a separate proposal. ...
Anton Ertl schrieb: This is the third RfD on this topic. The second one was in July 2007. You find the updated text further down. The main point of contention was about the prefix syntax. I solved it by removing the prefix stuff. [...] F" lib1/lib.fs" required F" data.txt" r/o open-file S\" ./funny\"filename" include-name-abs r/o open-file Actually, I have...
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_F=E4lth?= <peter.falth@tin.it> writes Re: RfD - Enhanced local variable syntax, v4 (long) On Aug 28, 9:20 pm, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote: [..] If an extended form of { comes through, I would applaud it if the newly invented embellishments can be made to look like Forth comments easily. And if the syntax replaces the now standard stack comments, I ...
... of types not supported by "LOCALS|". I don't know what you mean with "meaning, rules, and ordering determined by the creator". Which creator? If additional type specifiers are standardized, then the RfD/CfV process and the standards committee will determine which ones will be added, and will determine the meaning and rules. I don't think anyone plans to make a proposal to make this ...
...and cleared depending on which sources you load - like the legacy flag for C bindings. 2) "|" is not standardized. a) Stephen selects a different separator. According to the RfD "\" has some existing practice, but OTOH has a conflict with "\" as a comment-starting character that can also be used in locals definitions (e.g., in Gforth). My suggestion: ...
...$19448@DIALUPUSA.NET... Given that, it seems difficult to explain the existence of the other syntax in so many other Forths for so many years, and now the existence of an RfD for the same. Not so hard to explain. Most grow up with computer languages that use infix notation. Infix abounds everywhere, including maths. It's easy to slip back into familiar or ...
...$c4b2db6$19448@DIALUPUSA.NET... Given that, it seems difficult to explain the existence of the other syntax in so many other Forths for so many years, and now the existence of an RfD for the same. Not so hard to explain. Most grow up with computer languages that use infix notation. Infix abounds everywhere, including maths. It's easy to slip back into familiar or preferred ...
..., and after an extension query for X:locals (or somesuch), it supports the standard meaning. 2) "|" is not standardized. a) Stephen selects a different separator. According to the RfD "\" has some existing practice, but OTOH has a conflict with "\" as a comment-starting character that can also be used in locals definitions (e.g., in Gforth). b) ...
