m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>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"
Yes, the latest version of the proposal
<http://www.forth200x.org/directories.html>
from 2007-07-22 proposes a
word INCLUDE-NAME-ABS, which is the kind of word you have in mind.
Looking at the reactions to that RfD, I see that
- Marcel Hendrix prefers having a prefix over F" and INCLUDE-NAME-ABS
<http://groups.google.at/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/293b54a6aa5c3b96>
I did not find any other reactions wrt INCLUDE-NAME-ABS
>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 ;)
I just think that most programmers won't do that, either, but will
just use the INCLUDE or REQUIRE that their system provides.
- 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
|
