Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 09:18:28 -0600 (CST) From: User RKW <rkw@nomad.dataplex.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Andrzej Bialecki <abial@nask.pl>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BootForth (was Re: New boot loader and alternate kernels) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811010910270.17193-100000@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <18893.909930119@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > So, how do I integrate it into the loader? Do we want to make it > > optional? Do we want to strip the loader back to the bare essentials > > and use BootFORTH for as much as possible? Is a "middle road" approach > > preferred? > > Well, you could probably save some space by registering all your existing > builtins as forth words and chucking the existing interpreter in favor > of the more traditional INTERPRET word. Not sure how you'd do that initial > timeout behavior thing though - probably some gross hack. :-) To make it small, that is the approach I would follow. Mixing languages leads to "bloat" because you end up supporting multiple ways to accomplish the same thing. KISS. As for the timeout, run a "word" that delays until its counter runs out or it finds a key. When that routine returns, test ?KEY to either read the actual input or fake it in the case of a timeout. 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9811010910270.17193-100000>