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

In article <a3b44$47fde5b0$cdd08528$23346@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Doug Hoffman  <dhoffman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Albert van der Horst wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>> The reasonable requirement of an OOP system is that its syntax
>> is re-implementable on other ANSI-94 systems, not that its code
>> is itself portable.
>
>OK. Again, then they won't be extensions.  Instead they would be
>additions to a Forth requiring re-implementation of each Forth to allow
>for that feature.

Re-implementation of the whole Forth? I would say that re-implementation
of the extension would be sufficient.

For example. Marcel Hendrix has reported that my class extension
doesn't run as is on iforth. I would be very surprised if iforth
could not handle it with some changes. Those Forth's that survive
in the wild have facilities to cope with most programming situations
even if there is not a portable Forth solution.

If in an exceptional case a code definition is inevitable I still
wouldn't count that as a re-implementation.

This is of course what standardisation is all about.
If all interesting extensions could be written in Standard Forth
there would be nothing to standardise.

>
>-Doug

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst