Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:01:47 -0800 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org>, "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> Subject: Re: Loader forth changes for customization Message-ID: <A0800C10-2455-477C-A2DF-FBE5A6FE6F87@mail.turbofuzz.com> In-Reply-To: <5283933E.30603@freebsd.org> References: <5282E56F.4020307@freebsd.org> <52832003.8080406@freebsd.org> <09673101-DB54-4D25-9989-8C80D06E266B@fisglobal.com> <5283933E.30603@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:57 AM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> = wrote: > It seems to work although I will talk to the team about making = separate files for the set commands. Since we=92re talking about this, there is an old maxim amongst FORTH = programmers that if a single word=92s definition takes more than a page, = it=92s just too dang long. There are some solid reasons for that, = namely the fact that forth is already hard enough to read as it is (and = I=92m speaking as a FAN of the language) and you generally need to keep = the =93internal stack state=94 in your head while writing a word since = the stack contract is only at word boundaries (e.g. word is defined as = tacking stack parameters foo and returning stack parameters bar). = Keeping the definitions short and sweet really helps to aid in = comprehension. The definition for draw-beastie currently violates that maxim, and if = you guys were to refactor it as part of this work, I=92m sure future = generations would not object! :) - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A0800C10-2455-477C-A2DF-FBE5A6FE6F87>