From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/01/2025 10:59 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article <9747ef2be5ee93d6a4f0c89352a38cec72624609@i2pn2.org>,   
   > dxf   wrote:   
   >> On 9/01/2025 9:50 am, dxf wrote:   
   >>> On 9/01/2025 5:11 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:   
   >>>> On 08-01-2025 17:27, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ( my CO variant, using the return address)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> : LOCAL R> SWAP DUP >R @ >R EXECUTE R> R> ! ;   
   >>>>   
   >>>> VARIABLE A   
   >>>> VARIABLE B   
   >>>>   
   >>>> \ I'm paranoid :)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 8 a !   
   >>>> 7 b !   
   >>>>   
   >>>> : divide   
   >>>>     A LOCAL   
   >>>>     B LOCAL   
   >>>>     B ! A !  A @ B @ /   
   >>>>     . CR   
   >>>> ;   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 15 3 divide a ? b ?   
   >>>> \ it doesn't mean they're not out to get you   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Wow! This works! Can't say how solid it is.. but still!   
   >>>   
   >>> Alas not portable.   
   >>> ...   
   >   
   > Definitely not portable.   
   >   
   >> R EXECUTE doesn't work for ciforth.   
   > There is no guarantee that a saved interpreter pointer on the   
   > stack is an execution token.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> More portable   
   >>   
   >> : (lx) >R ;   
   >>   
   >> : LOCAL R> SWAP DUP >R @ >R (lx) R> R> ! ;   
   >>   
   >> VARIABLE A   
   >> VARIABLE B   
   >>   
   >> 8 A !   
   >> 7 B !   
   >>   
   >> : divide ( a b -- )   
   >>    A LOCAL   
   >>    B LOCAL   
   >>    B ! A !  A @ B @ /   
   >>    . CR   
   >> ;   
   >>   
   >> 15 3 divide A ? B ?   
   >   
   > Good catch!   
   > This is an implementation for CO and it works e.g. on ciforth.   
   > But why a different name, CO or ;: as per Chuck Moore.   
   > : CO >R ;   
   > : ;: >R ;   
   > If I use the word (lx) for a decorator, the name makes absolutely no sense.   
      
   I didn't realize I was implementing CO.  Now I know what it does.   
   : seems a good name.  It was also the name of DOES> predecessor but I could   
   never find any details.   
      
   >   
   > It is less efficient than a machine code implementation, but it doesn't   
   > rely on information on register use in the interpret machine. This   
   > implementation has a good chance to work an a majority of implementations.   
   >   
   > Groetjes Albert   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)