Re: RfD - Enhanced local variable syntax (long)

"J Thomas" <jethomas5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>Alex McDonald wrote:
>> Andreas Kochenburger wrote:
>
>> > I'd prefer that the locals definition must be the first definition
>> > within a word, i.e. appear right after : NAME ..
>> > This can easily be checked by the compiler.
>
>> It can't be parsed for as it would break a lot of code. It can be
>> detected only if { can ascertain that there's been no code generated
>> between : and { . Would that not give optimising compilers some
>> difficulties?
>
>If you want to check for that, you could have { be something that :
>:NONAME and DOES> check. Any other time it doesn't work or gives an
>error message.
>
>It wouldn't break code for the standard to say not to define locals
>elsewhere -- code which does that would be just as ****table as it is
>now. Any implementator who wants to let people define locals elsewhere
>could do so. The question is whether it would  be good to require
>implementors to allow locals definition elsewhere. And if so, which
>places should locals definition be allowed?

Why should {-locals be more restricted than LOCALS|-locals?

Currently a standard programs can use LOCALS| in other places, or it
can load http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/anslocal.fs
and use {
in the same places.

If Andreas Kochenburg only wants to use { at the start of a
definition, there is nothing in this proposal that prevents him from
doing so.  Imposing this practice on others smells of Adaism.

Fup2: c.l.f

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2006: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth2006/