From: do-not-use@swldwa.uk   
      
   On 01/05/2024 02:49, dxf wrote:   
   > On 1/05/2024 5:09 am, Gerry Jackson wrote:   
   >> On 29/04/2024 21:54, Paul Rubin wrote:   
   >>> Gerry Jackson  writes:   
   >>>> - the pictured output buffer (POB) may be transient, can be corrupted by   
   >>>>     the system e.g. being  moved or overwritten   
   >>>   
   >>> Yeah that's a typical Forthy thing though.  So after calling #> you have   
   >>> to copy the output away before doing anything else that could mess with   
   >>> the POB..   
   >>   
   >> Yes I know, but that shouldn't be necessary. I guess it's a hangover from   
   the time 40 years ago when memory was a scarce and expensive commodity. Things   
   like this should be weeded out of the standard.   
   >   
   > How is efficient use of a resource 'a hangover'?   
      
   Perhaps a better term would have been 'a consequence of'. Calling   
   sharing of memory between different buffers an 'efficient use of a   
   resource' is making a virtue of necessity 40 years ago. It isn't needed   
   these days. Anyway copying a string to avoid corruption of data is   
   hardly efficient.   
      
   > I've no particular allegiance   
   > to Standard Forth and will happily argue against things that were never   
   properly   
   > considered e.g. the topic of this thread.  Multiple HOLD buffers is like   
   multiple   
   > S" buffers.  For some folks one is never enough.   
   >   
      
   Like Block buffers you mean where, IIRC, more than 1 was the norm.   
      
   --   
   Gerry   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)