Re[2]: [colorforth] DOES> How is colorForth different from other Forths?

[Mark Slicker <maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> To get back to the original question, though :) How can this be done
> in colorForth (talking about how cf and other Forths are different)?

Macros essentially. The difference with colorForth it seems, is that is
there is not this redundancy in putting names dictionary. To put aside
the messy details for a moment:

struct
: field0 field
: field1 field
...
: s endstruct

> And if it isn't done, why not? is there another method? is it just not
> used very often? is there a down side?

I've only given an example of what I have done. I'm not making any
argument. However to be perfectly honest I have no problem with the early
bound fields.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com