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"