Re: [colorforth] To kernel, or not to kernel

["Roman Pavlyuk \(personal\)" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

1, 2, 3, and , are good enough for implementing primitives. I agree with you
completely.
Though I'd like to have a sufficient set of primitives for... here the game
begins -- sufficient for what purposes ? :)

BR,
Roman

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Arthur W. Green
To: colorforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [colorforth] To kernel, or not to kernel


Albert van der Horst <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...

>[..] This could be the starting point for
>a tool that fits nicely into colorforth, maybe leaving some things
>out, aiming for half a dozen screens.
>
Maybe I missed something, but isn't adding an assembler somewhat missing
the point of colorForth? It seems to me that it places too much emphasis
on the aspect of PC colorForth that is the PC, and not the aspect of
colorForth that is machineForth.

-- Art



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


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