Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Implementation dependence Keywords: swizzling implementation Message-ID: <5693@ficc.uu.net> Date: 15 Aug 89 15:58:26 GMT References: <4617@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> <5750@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 13 In article <5750@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: > Note that correctly implemented Forths for the 68000 > must go through contortions to do @ and ! when not at a word boundary, but > this is necessary for portability! No they don't, any more than correctly implemented forths for the PDP-11 do. If you depend on @ and ! working at arbitrary boundaries, then your program is machine-dependant. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"