Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: exercise in double number arithmetic Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:00:40 GMT Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien Lines: 45 Message-ID: <2024Jul15.160040@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> References: Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:10:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dee3f6596e3c52cb456e7adbaad5e93c"; logging-data="761442"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jNPo/bekE07o5wakBwl3M" Cancel-Lock: sha1:QMZHYE9oHR4u6JHHXiGs9oBDYP4= X-newsreader: xrn 10.11 Bytes: 2173 Krishna Myneni writes: >There's a reason why RECURSE (or equivalent) is preferable to having the >name of the word in the output of SEE in Forth. This is because it is >possible to have an earlier definition with the same name and to call it >from within the definition e.g. > >: binom ... ; > >: binom ... binom ... ; Yes, in Gforth SEE produces the same output for : foo ; : foo foo ; see foo and for : foo recursive foo ; see foo Gforth's SEE also does not tell you that BAR is shadowed in the following example: : bar 1 . ; : foo bar ; : bar 2 . ; see foo Nor does Gforth's SEE tell you that a word it calls is in a wordlist that is not in a search order. Sometimes I think about giving some indication of such issues, but up to now these ideas are pretty low on my todo list, because these things cause little pain. If you want to see the source code, use LOCATE (in the development version). - 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: https://forth-standard.org/ EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net