Received: by 10.180.99.163 with SMTP id er3mr859012wib.2.1353230363466;
        Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:19:23 -0800 (PST)
Path: q13ni350613wii.0!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!news.litech.org!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:00:23 -0600
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:00:22 -1000
From: "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com>
Reply-To: erat...@forth.com
Organization: FORTH, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Words consuming arguments, was [Re: Is there a better way?]
References: <70a117c1-ba9f-474b-97f3-6440be3d4573@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <5a70f750-2b4b-4c71-962c-0906bdb5f969@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <k70uhq$j2u$1@dont-email.me> <782dnUcywZ3snQnNnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@supernews.com> <k713o5$lbp$2@dont-email.me> <6c7a026e-ea57-4bd3-8ca6-0ec7a3d66f98@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> <0fCdnZJDo-5tswvNnZ2dnUVZ8nWdnZ2d@supernews.com> <bfe98488-6f97-497f-9a5f-1959d63759eb@b19g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> <Tq2dncwBFL7RKAvNnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@supernews.com> <62cb4769-1a1e-4095-9474-edb37cb9053d@pb2g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <ccc298bd-9de6-4def-a4c6-4f31c17af369@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <k7926a$aob$1@speranza.aioe.org> <o6WdnVkWKcFjvgXNnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com> <aafcb3a4-dab1-4390-8e10-b894284686c2@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com> <k7ceuc$fb4$1@speranza.aioe.org> <45d4f07b-8d85-43e7-acc9-614966bdae14@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <k7evm0$kls$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lo6dnQzHTZphWD3NnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d@supernews.com> <k7s561$lku$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In-Reply-To: <k7s561$lku$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Message-ID: <mdqdnYH8wqQ6BjzNnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@supernews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Trace: sv3-ZTbuIW0ohxsz362QytRW4FVZj7bpythKsITPNRfSwGYvOST0bwJV/HXRczC38KWB2UkT3YAvvmnXNzB!YXE1JEX6J88TZ74AM/X22Z0IDNc3WAP26aWdJvPRVgV0eTJ3jm1Y8/v+RziL370+0RCi/kh6sdOB!CVuYjQOnFg==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3534
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 11/12/12 2:49 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
...
> BTW, this is the original definition of COUNT:
>
> "      COUNT         addr1  ---  addr2  n                    L0
>                 Leave the byte address addr2 and byte count n of a message
>                 text beginning at addr1.  It is presumed that the first
>                 byte at addr1 contains the text byte count and the actual
>                 text starts with the second byte.  Typically COUNT is
>                 followed by TYPE."
>
> It's also more accurate.  It doesn't assume counted strings.

I'm not sure what "original" means in this context. COUNT has been 
around since 1971, which is 7 years before the first, very preliminary, 
attempt at standards. In any case, the sentence, "It is presumed that 
the first byte at addr1 contains the text byte count and the actual text 
starts with the second byte" is an accurate description of a counted string.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================