From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 01-03-2025 12:47, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   >> 11 !@   
   >> 3  atomic!@   
   >> 66 +!   
   >>   
   >>> We've done without it all this time.   
   >>   
   >> Sure, you can replace it with DUP @ >R ! R>.  Having a word for that   
   >> relieves the programmer of producing such a sequence (possibly with a   
   >> bug) and the reader of having to analyse what's going on here.   
      
   I found the sequence exactly twice in my code - one an application   
   program and one a library. I agree whole-heartedly that such a sequence   
   may help a programmer to abstract such a pattern - I've added several of   
   those myself.   
      
   However, if it is that rare there is no point in adding it. Creating too   
   many superfluous abstractions may even get counter productive in the   
   sense that predefined abstractions are ignored and reinvented. So, this   
   is not one I'd add immediately - but never say never. May be it will pop   
   up in the future. Who knows.. ;-)   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)