Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!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: <5719@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 16 Aug 89 15:46:21 GMT
References: <4617@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> <5750@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <5693@ficc.uu.net> <5769@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 18

In article <5769@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes:
> If you view Forth as implementing a virtual machine, then the implementation
> must allow @ and ! at odd addresses.  The 83 Standard states that the argument
> to @ and ! is "addr", where the definition of "addr" is a 16 bit unsigned
> integer (range 0..65535).

Then might I respectfully note that the 83 standard sucks? To begin with,
on a cell-oriented machine that same address space would have the range
0..32767. Secondly, forcing an implementation to permit byte-adressing
rather than provide alignment words (such as !=CELLS!) is seriously brain
damaged.

I remain an unrepentant forth-77 fan, for this and other reasons.
-- 
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"