On Apr 6, 6:34 pm, an...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> Bruce McFarling <agil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >SF" ..." returns a string anchored in the directory of the source file
>
> That's certainly an approach that would avoid the whole prefix issue
> completely. Another advantage is that it would do the anchoring at
> the right place (in the file where the string sits, rather than in the
> file where the string is used).
....
> One disadvantage of F" (or SF") is that most Forth programmers seem to
> prefer INCLUDE and REQUIRE over INCLUDED and REQUIRED, standards be
> damned.
Yes, exactly.
So please provide non-parsing versions of SF" WF" LF"
so that we would write ourselves
: s-include parse-name src-anchored included ;
: l-include parse-name lib-anchored included ;
and would be able to write
: w-include parse-name wrk-anchored included ;
if we ever need it ;)
And as to the straightforward notation
S" win32/process.fth" lib-anchored included
it looks enough ugly to be... well... ahem... I want to say, it is the
same style that we have in the standard.
|
