[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Sep 30 13:41:29 1993 
Subject:Re: Threaded Interpretive Languages 
From:Julian V. Noble 
Volume-ID:930930.04 

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at  writes:
> |> postscript before. i was wondering how the operator "bind" appears in 
> |> forth, i guess its one of those words i have yet to learn about.
> 
> I looked bind up in the red book and found out that it does what the
> Forth compiler does, i.e., replace the names of the words with their
> execution tokens. I.e., a Forth colon def is represented in a way that
> a PS procedure would be after applying bind. If you want to have
> something like the normal PS behaviour, you have to write the words in
> the following way:
> 
> Instead of
> 
> : foo
>  bar ;
> 
> : foo
>  s" bar" evaluate ;
> 
> Of course, this would be very slow. Also, if you do a lot of words
> like this, you would make a new defining word for them.

A propos of this remark about the slowness of writing things as
strings and EVALUATEing them, it is nice to recall the posting on this
newsgroup last Spring (I think) advertising for a FORTH programmer
experienced in optimization. The ad was placed by Adobe Systems...

--jvn