slava@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> ward mcfarland wrote:
>> Thus I would prefer
>> RECORD: .... ;RECORD
>> to
>> RECORD .... END-RECORD (or was it ENDRECORD, END_RECORD, RECORD-END)
>>
>> and
>>
>> CODE: ... ;CODE
>> to
>> CODE ... END-CODE
>
> In Factor, the ; word goes through a layer of indirection, so we have:
>
> : ... ; colon definitions
> M: .... ; methods
> C: .... ; constructors
>
> etc. I find this is more readable than ;M ;C and so on.
To me, the : and ; denote a particular family of definitions, that is,
those compiled by the Forth : compiler. Words that are built other ways
shouldn't use that notation, it causes confusion. Without knowing a lot
about Factor, I'd guess that M: ... ; etc is appropriate, but CODE: ...
;CODE is not.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310-491-3356
5155 W. Rosecrans Ave. #1018 Fax: +1 310-978-9454
Hawthorne, CA 90250
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
|
