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

m_l_g3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 writes:
> Strictly speaking, StrongForth is
>inherently unstandard.

Yes, but as, say, ColorForth shows, being standard is no prerequisite
to being used (to some extent) by a number of people, and being
discussed here.

>And, by the way, StrongForth does not just type ckecking, but stack
>effect checking.

That's a prerequisite to type checking.  If the compiler doesn't know
how many items are on the stack, it certainly cannot assign types to
the stack items and check that they are used according to the type
system.

- 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