From: minforth@gmx.net   
      
   Am 24.09.2025 um 10:28 schrieb albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl:   
   > In article <2025Sep24.083826@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   > Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >> minforth  writes:   
   >>> Am 23.09.2025 um 19:23 schrieb Anton Ertl:   
   >>>> minforth  writes:   
   >>>>> FWIW I also use suffixes for recognizers:   
   >>>>> let M be a matrix   
   >>>>> M´  auto-transposed   
   >>>>> M~  auto-inverted   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Can you give an example of a matrix with your matrix recognizer?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> To be fair, here MinForth displays the matrix/vector stack in the   
   >>> QUIT prompt:   
   >>>   
   >>> MinForth 3.6 (64 bit) (fp matrix)   
   >>> # 0 0 matrix mat  ok   
   >>> # m[ 1 2 3 ; 4 5 6 ]  ok   
   >>   
   >> Given this syntax, a parsing word M[ suggests itself to me (although I   
   >> generally dislike parsing words and probably would choose a different   
   >> syntax); or maybe a word that switches to a matrix interpreter   
   >> (possibly implemented using the recognizer words, with ] switching   
   >> back.  Why did you choose to use a recognizer?   
   >   
   > WORDLIST suggest a different solution with a wordlist MATRIX   
   > MAT( adds MATRIX to the search order   
   > )MAT removes MATRIX from the search order   
   >   
   > Circumstances may prevent this, but I think that is the situation   
   > where wordlists are intended for, create a different interpretation/compile   
   > environment.   
   In principle yes, but wordlists don't hook themselves into the Forth   
   interpreter. IMO this is the only novelty of recognizers.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)