Re: Third draft of Structures

"Stephen Pelc" <stephenXXX@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> a écrit dans le message de 
news: 44f56147.152012312@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> This the best compromise I can get to, taking into account all
> contributions so far. The compromises in this draft take into
> account name conflicts, stack effect conflicts, alignment and
> fat/thin implementations.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> RfD: Structures - Version 3
> 30 August 2006, Stephen Pelc
>
[snip]

I hope that the text which follows will be interpreted only as a
material for reflection.

    STRUCT POINT   \ -- len
      1 CELLS FIELD: P.X
      1 CELLS FIELD: P.Y
    END-STRUCT

It seems to me that this construction is purely lexicographical and is
filled with ambiguities.

Indeed, there is no relation between P.X and P.Y. They are not fields, 
they
are independent offsets.

STRUCT is CONSTANT. POINT is not a STRUCT, it is a constant.
FIELD: is an OFFSET, not a field.
END-STRUCT don't terminates a STRUCT.

Finally, the only word which could possibly enter the standard would
be "OFFSET:".

    0
    1 CELLS OFFSET: P.X
    1 CELLS OFFSET: P.X
    CONSTANT POINT

Roughly, the word STRUCT in Forth cannot exist: Forth does not possess 
at
present structures, except for the (refused) versions which parses.

This ends the reflection which I submit.

Charles