[ColorForth] Passing values from Compiletime to Runtime

["t" <loveall@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dirk,

Received this posting 4 hours _after_ I received Jeff's response to it. Aint
email grand?

t wrote:
> > <red>1+<ltblue>1<purple><green>+<black>;
> > (These are the correct colors from 4word).
> >


Dirk wrote:
> Allright. So i got it right, i think. In any case, the double color
> token doesn't please me... the only way to see it is to move
> the cursor on top of it, right? I'd really like a visible operator
> for that, if not ">", maybe "~" or "|"...

Not quite. There is not a double color token, there are two color tokens,
back to back.

Each color token gets executed individually. <purple> compiles TOS as an
inline literal.
Then <green> delimits the next string '+', finds in dictionary and compiles
it.

<purple> is actually an alias for the definition 'L', so you have either
option: color or symbol, both explicit.

> Now, no need to argue, i just have to implement that and use it
> and see what it's like. I'm still busy with my classical Forth
> interpreter ATm, though, so you will have to wait a little while
> until i can report... Don't know if i extend your implementation
> or write my own, i gotta see.

The confusion over double color tokens comes about from confusing different
implementations of Color Forth. Chuck implemented jump tables that are color
context sensitive and had to add a feature to his editor to show the
implicit colors. While 4word is implemented at a simpler level that
explicitly shows everything.

It will be interesting to see how you resolve these 'stylistic' differences.
Will you opt for low level explicit primitives or go for the more abstract
implicit grammar?

Regards,
Terry

------------------------

To Unsubscribe from this list, send mail to Mdaemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with:
unsubscribe ColorForth
as the first and only line within the message body
Problems   -   List-Admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main ColorForth site   -   http://www.ultratechnology.com