RE: [colorforth] DOES> How is colorForth different from other For ths?

[Frédéric DUBOIS <frederic.dubois@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Chuck Moore [mailto:chipchuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Envoyé : dim. 14 décembre 2003 20:14
> À : colorforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Objet : Re: [colorforth] DOES> How is colorForth different from other
> Forths?
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should explain why colorForth doesn't have DOES>. 
> (Of course, I
> would spell  DOES>  as  does , just to simplify the syntax.)
> 

( I spell it ;does )

[...]
> 
> Trade-offs were different with threaded code. But when 
> compiling native
> code, fewer syntatical constructs seems better. It's nice to say that

Why?

> colorForth source has a 1-1 correspondance with object code. 
> If several
> syntaxes generated the same code, it would be a many-1 correspondance.
> 

How much do you value this correspondance? Is there some benefits to use it
in bytecode implementations for example?

 Amicalement,
  Frederic


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