From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at   
      
   albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:   
   >The assembler listing is one to one to Forth source   
      
   Certainly not.  E.g., the Forth source as presented by Ting contains   
   documentation, the assembler listing does not.  E.g., here is the   
   definition of COUNT in both forms:   
      
   First, the source code as presented by Ting:   
      
   : COUNT      addrl -- addr2 n   
    DUP 1+      addr2=addrl+l   
    SWAP        Swap addrl over addr2 and   
    C@          fetch the byte count to the stack.   
      
      
          DB 85H ; COUNT   
          DB 'COUN'   
          DB 'T'+80H   
          DW DOES-8   
   COUNT  DW DOCOL   
          DW DUP   
          DW ONEP   
          DW SWAP   
          DW CAT   
          DW SEMIS   
      
   >What was the last time   
   >a gforth user looked up the source of DROP ? Was it illuminating?   
      
   Good question.  DROP is written in Vmgen, not in Forth, so others may   
   not find it illuminating.  For words written in Forth, things may be   
   different.  Try:   
      
   locate if   
   see if   
   simple-see if   
   see-code if   
      
   >The fig listings were intended to type in (before modems, let   
   >alone internet) not to be studied.   
      
   Exactly.  By contrast, System's Guide to fig-Forth is intended to be   
   studied.   
      
   - 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 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)