Re: Creating and using arrays - again

Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
>> > Duke Normandin wrote:
>> > > Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > > A more Forthish approach would be:
>> > > >
>> > > > : ARRAY ( n -- )   CREATE  CELLS ALLOT
>> > > >    DOES> ( i -- i-addr )   CELLS + ;
>> > >
>> > > I'm just now clueing in on Forth's 'double-barrel' /
>> > > 'delayed-duet' capability of CREATE / DOES>
>> >
>> > The best way to think about it is that the part before the DOES>
>> > specifies a class of words with a shared defining behavior.  The
>> > part after the DOES> defines the shared behavior of all instances of
>> > this class of definitions.
>> 
>> I got it! Every "array" incarnated using ARRAY will all be created
>> using the "defining words". Everyone of these "arrays" will execute
>> the words following DOES> when called with the appropriate value in
>> TOS.

> If you're willing, look at how you'd get nearly the same effect without
> DOES> . There are a few Forths that don't give you DOES> and someday you
> DOES> might use one and need to work around it.

Wouldn't it be better to write DOES> for such a Forth?

DOES> has been in Forth for a very long time.  A Forth without DOES>
is -- IMO -- fit only for the round filing cabinet in the corner.

Andrew.