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"