From: "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:49:07 -0500
Local: Mon, Nov 12 2012 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: Words consuming arguments, was [Re: Is there a better way?]
"Andrew Haley" <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in messagenews:lo6dnQzHTZphWD3NnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Rod Pemberton <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote:news:email@example.com...
> > "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> On Nov 6, 6:53 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnotz.cnm>Did you just pop in and ignore *EVERYTHING* that was said previously, i.e.,
> >> wrote:
> >> > What about a word like COUNT ?
> >> > COUNT ( addr -- addr len )
> >> This is the stack picture for COUNT :
> >> : count ( adr1 -- adr2 len )
> >> COUNT does consume adr1 --- and then it gives you back
> > That's a matter of interpretation. len is definately different.
> >> (adr2 is not the same datum as adr1).
> > False. "adr2 is" _typically_ "not the same datum as adr1", but can be.
> > There is no requirement that adr2 be different from adr1.
> Of course there is, because the count is at c-addr1, and c-addr2 is
> 6.1.0980 COUNT
> ( c-addr1 -- c-addr2 u )
> Return the character string specification for the counted string
> > There is only a requirement that COUNT returns an address to the
> The count precedes the string, as COUNT's glossary entry makes clear.
including the now snipped context? You *keep* responding near the end of a
thread after relevant context for you reply has been snipped. Please, read
the entire thread first.
BTW, this is the original definition of COUNT:
" COUNT addr1 --- addr2 n L0
It's also more accurate. It doesn't assume counted strings.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.