[ColorForth] Passing values from Compiletime to Runtime

[roelf <postbus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 2/5/01 21:23, Dirk Heise at dheise@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Hi! 
> I'm new on this list, so please excuse me if
> this has been discussed before... and let me introduce
> myself, i'm Dirk Heise from Braunschweig, Germany.
> During the last 20 years, i traveled from Basic to Forth
> to Pascal to C to C++ to Python to Forth, mainly.
> Though, at work, still using C++, a pity, but i don't
> have to program a lot anymore there, so that's fine.
> 
> I have read only little about ColorForth by now. mainly
> the Fireside Chat on ultratechnology and the documentation
> of a Color Forth by Terry Loveall, and i haven't used it
> myself by now. So maybe i got things all wrong ;-)
> 
> As i understand it, to do something like
> : 1+ 1 + ; ( classic Forth )
> you do something like
> [red] 1+ [green] 1 [blue] [grey] + [black] ;
> where red = define
> green = decimal number
> blue  = compile literal
> grey  = compile call
> black = execute
> I made up the color coding myself now... Don't have
> Terry's docs handy right now.
> 
> So, what disturbs me is the blue color token that in
> my example compiles the literal (passes the value
> from compiletime to runtime), because two color tokens
> follow without a word in between.
> 
> First, is my example correct? Would it have to look like this
> in ColorForth?
> Second, what do other people think of this double color
> token? I would like to get rid of it, my best idea
> so far would be to overload ">" to be an operator for
> this "value passing". I just dislike the idea of this
> rather invisible two-color thing and would like to
> replace it with something more visible.
> 
> Of course, this would obfuscate some arithmetic
> expressions, but i would like to have a single-key
> operator because it's so frequently needed.
> 
> Thinking a bit further, such an operator could be extended.
> Like, imagine the Forth is indirectly threaded (i hope
> that that is the correct term -- i mean like a Fig-Forth,
> using byte codes), the bytecodes for the example above
> would be
> lit 1 +
> ; and as the sequence
> lit n +
> is one of the more frequent ones, one could create a
> runtime word "lit+" that could be used like this:
> lit+ n
> which would be faster and smaller. To tell the compiler
> to use it, one could now define a compiler word
>> +
> that combines the effect of my imaginary ">" (or the
> two-color sequence) and compiling a call to +. Thus,
> 1 >+
> would do the same as
> 1 > +
> but create slightly better code.
> 
> What are your opinions? Did this make sense?
> 
> Dirk Heise
> dheise@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <<If you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself.>>
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> 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
>
 
hi Dirk,
actually it's a bit different I think on Terry Loveall's colorforth,
at least the one I'm using.
Taking your colorscheme:
[red] 1+ [green] 1 [grey] + ; [green] 2 [black] 1+ . <enter> 3 ok

roelf

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

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