Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>