Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:guupc5-i8q.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Having a library for StrongForth would probably reduce some comments
from
> non-Forthers like Q: "you don't have typechecking" A: "require
strong.fs"

That would really be nice, but I'm afraid it's not doable. As Michael
wrote, 
StrongForth is "inherently unstandard". Strong static type checking works 
only if the compiler has precise information about the stack effect of
each 
word. In StrongForth, this information is included in the dictionary. But
it 
would be difficult to add this information to a system that does not
provide 
it from the start. Even if this was possible, how to deal with a 
non-typechecking library that is included after "strong.fs"?

Furthermore, some words like ?DUP and FIND are simply incompatible with 
strong static type checking, because their stack effects are not known at 
compile time. And finally, "strong.fs" couldn't take advantage of 
overloading, because this feature introduces hundreds of additional 
incompatibilities by changing the names of many words.

Stephan