| Re: EVALUATE for inlining |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: comp.lang.forth · Group Profile
Author: Aleksej SaushevAleksej Saushev Date: Aug 6, 2008 13:41
> Aleksej Saushev writes:>>
>>I think we should standardize >order and order>,
>
> Good idea (certainly for >ORDER; ORDER> appears less useful, I usually
> use PREVIOUS). Will you make the RfD?
>
>>Is there any reason, why instead
>>of such intuitive and natural things, set-order and get-order
>>were mandated?
>
> Oh, you intend them as replacements for GET-ORDER and SET-ORDER. Hmm,
> one reason might be that, for full replacement, you also need a
> SEARCH-ORDER-EMPTY? word or somesuch; that would mean one more word
> overall, and a number of people seem to prefer fewer (complex) words
> over more (simple) words.
My thought was ORDER-DEPTH.
I don't know those people. As for me and some others, it is
definitly better to have simpler and cleaner primitives than
complex ones with hidden special cases inside.
Even if >ORDER and ORDER> with something to make them complete
won't replace GET-ORDER and SET-ORDER, it would be nice to see
them in the standard due to the frequence of usage. It is simply
impractical to have all those conditional definitions of words
so frequent in systems.
> But maybe people from the Forth-94
> committee will enlighten us with real insights into this question.
Yes, I'd like to understand reasons behind this solution.
--
CE3OH...
| 
