From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
Ruvim writes:
>On 2024-10-04 15:52, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> It can be defined: Gforth has SET-TO
...
>I wonder why a kind of "TO" is not used to set this field/property, and
>*maybe* a kind of "ACTION-OF" to get this property.
Interesting idea. Maybe in some future version.
>> However, lots of Forth programmers have defined VALUEs, and barely any
>> have defined getters and setters.
>
>Do you mean that this is due to some advantages in *using*?
>
>I think, this is because `VALUE` (and co.) is a very old technique that
>is provided out of the box by many systems.
Yes. Writing getters and setters is also provided out of the box.
variable addr-x
: x addr-x @ ;
: set-x addr-x ! ;
For some reason, people have not written getters and setters. The
lack of flexibility of standard TO has not deterred them from using
that.
>In contrast, to use
>separate getters and setters you need to create your own tool to define
>them.
Obviously not, see above. What tool do you have in mind?
>> The discussions have been aboyt
>> values vs. variables, not about values vs. getters and setters.
>
>This shows that some people don't like the to-based approach.
Does it? Are they using getters and setters instead? No.
>I seen that some implementers provide "value" and "to" only for third
>party programs and don't use them themselves.
Which ones? Typing WHERE TO right after startup in Gforth and in
SwiftForth shows a number of uses of TO in both systems.
- 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
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
