From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   On 2024-03-19 18:38, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article , Ruvim     
   wrote:   
   >> On 2024-03-19 04:48, dxf wrote:   
   [...]   
   >>> Unlike Bartholdi's VARIABLE, Tracy's new data type had aspects more   
   >>> in common with CONSTANT - namely supplying a value at definition time:   
   >>>   
   >>>     n VALUE name   
   >>>   
   >>> And it's quite misleading.   
   >>   
   >> Agree. It would be better to have  VALUE ( "name" -- )   
   >> And the initial value for "name" should be 0.   
   >>   
      
   >>> AFAICS Tracy made the correct choice of introducing a new data type   
   >>> rather than trying to redefine VARIABLE.   
      
   >>   
   >> But, "VALUE" does not imply a new *data type*, but only a new   
   >> type/subtype of named Forth definitions, if you like.   
   >>   
   [...]   
   >   
   > I like your observation that VALUE and VARIABLE is in fact the same   
   > datatype. Maybe that explains my dislike for VALUE.   
      
      
   My note just about terminology.   
      
   The children words of VALUE and VARIABLE *contain* data objects of the   
   same size and the same most general type "unspecified cell".   
      
   The children words of FVALUE and 2VALUE *contain* data objects of other   
   data types. But they don't imply *new* data types too.   
      
   A data type is a set, and a data type of a data object is a set to which   
   this data object belongs.   
      
   In Forth, a definition is not a data object. A particular execution   
   token is a data object, as well as a name token.   
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)