Re: [colorforth] ?dup

["Howerd Oakford" <howerd.oakford@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Moore" <chipchuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ColorForth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:49 AM
Subject: [colorforth] ?dup


> I agree that redefining standard Forth words is bad practice. But that's
> just one consideration, and in the heat of the moment can get overlooked.
>
> Perhaps the optimizing word  ?dup  could be renamed  /dup . The original
> mnemonic intention was: is a  dup  necessary? The new mnemonic would be:
> cancel  dup  if possible.
>
> That is, if present use isn't entrenched?
"?dup" is only used in blocks 20, 22 and 24 of CFDOS.BLK source - these are
the blocks that define the system, so it seems to be self-contained.

If I change CFDOS.BLK, it will mean that these 3 blocks will have to be
changed to work with another binary.
There are several other ( different ) binaries around, including 800x600,
Xwindows etc.
Changing "?dup" to "/dup" will effectively fork colorForth into two
sub-species.

Perhaps the answer is to define "system" blocks which must match the binary.
How about the first 64 blocks? ( I would like to lose the multiples of 18
blocks = one floppy cylinder ASAP ! )

Regards

Howerd




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com