> Coos Haak writes:

>>Op Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:44:17 GMT schreef Anton Ertl:

>

>>> douglasr dunvegan.co.uk> writes:

>>>>Is there any way to create a nameless word simply for the purpose of
>>>>being able to assign it's action to QUANTITY?

>

>>> In standard Forth the only way to create a nameless word is :NONAME.
>>> There is no standard way to create a nameless word with CREATE, but
>>> you can create a nameless colon definition with :NONAME that performs
>>> the same action as a word created with CREATE (...DOES>). However,
>>> wrt space efficiency the :NONAME-created word is probably worse on
>>> most systems than a CREATE-DOES>-created word with a throwaway name.

>

>>Surely, I agree with your explanation to use :NONAME for the problem at
>>hand, but could you explain, why is a word that only has some entering code
>>(a la DOCOL) followed by some code and no name longer than a word with a
>>header and some code?

> ...

> On 16 Dec, 21:34, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> Coos Haak writes:

>>>Op Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:44:17 GMT schreef Anton Ertl:

>

>>>> douglasr dunvegan.co.uk> writes:

>>>>>Is there any way to create a nameless word simply for the purpose of
>>>>>being able to assign it's action to QUANTITY?

>

>>>> In standard Forth the only way to create a nameless word is :NONAME.
>>>> There is no standard way to create a nameless word with CREATE, but
>>>> you can create a nameless colon definition with :NONAME that performs
>>>> the same action as a word created with CREATE (...DOES>). However,
>>>> wrt space efficiency the :NONAME-created word is probably worse on
>>>> most systems than a CREATE-DOES>-created word with a throwaway name. ...

> On 17 Dec, 11:00, douglasr dunvegan.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On 16 Dec, 21:34, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:

>

>>> Coos Haak writes:

>>>>Op Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:44:17 GMT schreef Anton Ertl:

>

>>>>> douglasr dunvegan.co.uk> writes:

>>>>>>Is there any way to create a nameless word simply for the purpose of
>>>>>>being able to assign it's action to QUANTITY?

>

>>>>> In standard Forth the only way to create a nameless word is :NONAME.
>>>>> There is no standard way to create a nameless word with CREATE, but
>>>>> you can create a nameless colon definition with :NONAME that performs
>>>>> the same action as a word created with CREATE (...DOES>). However,
>>>>> wrt space efficiency the :NONAME-created word is probably worse on
>>>>> most systems than a CREATE-DOES>-created word with a throwaway name. ...

> douglasr dunvegan.co.uk> writes:
>
> [Triple Fullquote deleted; please quote properly
> <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/mail-news-errors.html#quoting>]

> [Re: separate wordlist ...]
> You could use the same approach to make sure your X or Z does not
> shadow anything else.

>On 17 Dec, 15:50, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:

>>Note that execute-parsing.fs defines X only in a separate wordlist
>>and that is only used in a way that should not cause any shadowing
>>between this X and any user-defined X, so you should be able to use
>>X just as well as Z.

>
>I am not clear how you have hidden X from other than execute-parsing.
>Since the definition of X is sandwiched between the get-current ...
>set-current, I am wondering how execute-parsing can find it?

> X is defined in execute-parsing-wordlist.
> ...
> execute-parsing uses >order to add execute-parsing-wordlist to the
> top of the search order so that EVALUATE will find this X.

> Now something *I'm* not clear about. You posted this example earlier:
>

>>> This approach facilitates use of the data - for example a simple
>>> inventory report would be:
>>> BEGIN
>>> QUANTITY...

> On 19 Dec, 23:18, Josh Grams qualdan.com> wrote:
>

>
> On retrieving the data via ODBC functions into the Forth programme
> I observe the following:
>
> BinaryColumn DUMP
> 1C988A 54 00 65 00 78 00 74 00 20 00 69 00 6E 00 20 00
> T.e.x.t. .i.n. .
> 1C989A 42 00 69 00 6E 00 61 00 72 00 79 00 43 00 6F 00
> B.i.n.a.r.y.C.o.
> 1C98AA 6C 00 75 00 6D 00 6E 00 20 00 66 00 69 00 65 00
> l.u.m.n. .f.i.e.
> 1C98BA 6C 00 64 00 2E 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> l.d.............
>
> So, every second character is a 00

> On Dec 20, 1:51 pm, douglasr dunvegan.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> On retrieving the data via ODBC functions into the Forth programme
>> I observe the following:

>

>> BinaryColumn DUMP
>> 1C988A 54 00 65 00 78 00 74 00 20 00 69 00 6E 00 20 00
>> T.e.x.t. .i.n. .
>>
>> So, every second character is a 00

>
> It's actually Unicode. There are Windows functions MultiByteToWideChar
> and WideCharToMultiByte that can translate between ASCII and Unicode;
> ther may even be some flag that you can set hen talking to ODBC that
> does the translation for you (I've not checked).
>
> --
> Regards
> Alex McDonald- Hide quoted text - ...