Re: How does this Mini-OOF thing work, again?

Bruce McFarling <agila61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>DOES> ( ... o -- ... ) @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 over @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 execute ;
>
>... it would seem that when it does the ``OVER'', there's nothing
>really on the stack, so its not surprising that it @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's garbage.

The stack effect notation above indicates the overall stack effect of
words defined with METHOD; it does not reflect the stack effect of the
code after the DOES>.  The difference is that, before executing the
code the body address of the defined word is pushed on the stack.

So, with more stack comments, you get:

DOES> ( ... o -- ... ) ( o addr ) @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 over @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 execute ;

and when the OVER executes, there are two items on the stack.

- 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 2008:
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef08.html