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.
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
--
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
