Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 02:32:27 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: mike@smith.net.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BootFORTH - demo floppy Message-ID: <199812211032.CAA00403@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:25:21 PST." <199812210925.BAA09284@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Do you see my point here? I'm not against making it easier to interface with > the "C" environment. But you can do that without breaking compatibility. There > is a lot of room for that. The standard words for allocating strings won't > mind automatic appending a null, you can define words like "strcpy", "strlen" > and "strcmp" doing exactly what you would expect them to, and there even some > more obscure restrictions made in ANS Forth just so such interfacing can be > made more painlessly. But if you change the behavior of a standard word, > instead of just defining a new word, you not only make it "incompatible" with > standard programs (or, more to the point to us, libraries). You make it > incompatible with Forth programmers. Cool. That's just the sort of explanation that I need. As Jordan pointed out, I have no real grounding in Forth so I'm still making perspective errors. And I'll ask again; are you interested in working on this? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812211032.CAA00403>