home .. forth .. colorforth mail list archive ..

RE: [colorforth] merging edit time and run time

On Wed, 11 May 2005, [iso-8859-1] Frédéric DUBOIS wrote:



I reread your post. I've seen Chuck talk about the all the different
'times' of a word[1], display/edit/compile/define/run time.


Yes, I remembered that too and then your proposal of merging edit- and
run-time seemed to me somewhat in contradiction with it.
However, the Subtext example may indeed be fertile. Translated in CF, I
imagine a feature that let you give "a stack" (with some parameters) to a
word in the editor, and then the system would compile and execute this word
and it's dependencies automatically.

But I think we forgot to answer a very basic question: what's wrong with CF?
That's a true question: you have to identify precisely the problem before
you can solve it.
I thought subtext was interesting, and I saw some similarities with colorForth. This is why I posted the message on subtext. It hasn't changed my view colorForth, and it is not clear to me how the ideas of subtext would be integrated into colorForth much less if they would offer any signifigant benefit. 

Mark

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