From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   On 2024-08-05 14:04, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > Ruvim   wrote:   
   >> On 2024-08-04 15:11, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   >>> Particularly I hate ' / ['] .   
   >>> My solution that ' has to elevated to a denotation.   
   >>> Meaning 'someword leave the address/dea/handle/nametoken   
   >>> of `` someword '' that is the same in interpret and compile mode.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I also often use `'someword` instead of `['] someword` and `' someword`,   
   >> because I hate different forms for the conceptually same thing in   
   >> interpretation and compilation, and because the form `'someword` is shorter.   
   >>   
   >> Another thing I hate is when it's not obvious that a word is a parsing   
   >> word, or what its delimiter. So I prefer when parsing delimiters are   
   >> visible.   
   >>   
   >> For example, I would prefer:   
   >>    want( word1 word2 word3 )   
   >> rather than:   
   >>    want word1 want word2 want word3   
   >   
   > I have changed WANT to accept several words on the same line   
   >      want word1 word2 word3   
   > This is one of the few "improvements" I'm not sure about.   
   > By itself WANT is a concession because it is actually   
   > "word1" WANTED "word2" WANTED "word3" WANTED   
   > Your proposal makes sense, having several WANT(ED) on the same line   
   > is ugly and impractical, but parsing to the end of line is dubious.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> But if you hate parsing words in principle (just because they do   
   >> parsing), why not hate such long parsing words like `[if]`, `\`, the   
   >> construct "]]...[[", etc? What is an alternative for them?   
   >   
   > WANT is used recursively in blocks. If you wanted to accomplish the   
   > same thing with [IF], it would be a horrid mess.   
      
   I meant the word `[IF]` by itself, without connection with `WANT`.   
      
   The word `[IF]` is a parsing word. If you hate parsing words in general,   
   what alternative to `[IF]` could you suggest?   
      
      
   The word `]]` is also a parsing word (in a standard-compliant   
   implementation). It parses the input stream till the lexeme "[[".   
      
   How to implement such functionality without active parsing the input stream?   
      
      
   But if such long parsing words like `[IF]` and `]]` are acceptable, why   
   the words that parses a single lexeme are not acceptable? (apart from   
   naming and terminator visibility problems)?   
      
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)