Re: BETWEEN

In article <20080312075319.57514ec7.jethomas5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Jonah Thomas  <jethomas5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>William James <w_a_x_man@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Ed" <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > Playing with the algorithm for WITHIN (A.6.2.2440) one gets:
>> >
>> > : BETWEEN  ( n1|u1 n2|u2 n3|u3 -- flag )   OVER - -ROT - U< 0= ;
>>
>> Stuff like this leads one to believe that Forth code is
>> unreadable, cryptic, unsharable, and unmaintainable.
>> It's worse than some assembly language I've seen.
>> Forth needs to become a higher-level language.
>
>What are your standards for readability?
>
>I see six commands, and I understand every one of them. No control
>structures. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Is that so? It is so troublesome to find out from the code
which from the 3 is supposed to be in between that I looked up
the do***entation of WITHIN

In c within becomes

int within(int i, int j, int k)
{
    unsigned int ip=i;
    unsigned int jp=j;
    unsigned int kp=k;

    return
        ( j<=i && i<k ) ||
        ( jp<=ip && ip<kp ) ;
}

This is slightly clearer and also reveals that WITHIN is a very
tricky two-for-the-price-of-one code from the 8-kbyte-for-4-users
era.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst