[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Sep 30 10:38:19 1993 
Subject:Re: Threaded Interpretive Languages 
From:Anton Ertl 
Volume-ID:930930.02 

In article <28dkcv$k9l@tandem.HIP.CAM.ORG>, mkraml@CAM.ORG (Mark Kraml) writes:
|> Jack Woehr (jax@Cygnus.COM) wrote:
|> i am still climbing that steep curve to forthdom, but i did a bit of 
|> 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.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl                    Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen