Re: What's right with FORTH and wrong with c.l.f.

On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Richard Owlett <rowl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> {Grasshopper, capitalization in subject line significant :}
>
> What is so right with Forth that it *OVERRIDES* ALL negative comments?
>
> Obviously the :  ; pair.
> What other language morphs to match the "real" world so well in a such
> well defined manner?
>
> What's wrong with c.l.f. ?
>
> /begin *RANT*
> A close relative of N.I.H. Syndrome.
>
> e g
> I'm interested in a variety of problems ranging from subsets of speech
> recognition to sources of GPS errors and their significance.
>
> What do they have in common?
> Someone else has compiled raw data. It's available in ASCII format.
> That requires me to parse it.
> I doubt anyone would claim string handling as a Forth forte.
>
> I've quit asking questions on c.l.f. as typical answer has been
>
> "DON'T DO THAT"
>
> /end *RANT*

I have created a set of string handling words that let me do BASIC
style string manipulation. My goal was to prove it could be done
without to much trouble.  I end up using the words quite a bit in my
projects, just because it's so simple. It is a little old fashioned in
that it uses Pascal style strings.  The string functions are re-
entrant because of a string stack gluing them together. I have never
changed it for ANS strings but I have tested it somewhat on gForth 6
and Win32Forth.

Since my email address is exposed here.  If you send me a note I can
send you some files
I also used the string words to create a replica of some Python string
functions that I call MONTY.  (very bad PUN)

BF