Re: [dev] nscript - a little stack-based scripting language interpretter I wrote

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:51:10AM +0200, yy wrote:
>2010/8/26 Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com>:
>>> It does not work that way in postscript and, as I already said in
>>> another message, it does not work that way in forth, neither in toka
>>> or raven. Would you mind explainning why your way is more logical? I
>>> think it could get compicated once you introduce else or nested if
>>> blocks.
>>
>> It does work that way in forth. At least, the conditional comes just before
>> the if token (though the branches come after it).
>
>Therefore, it does not work that way in forth. You can also say that
>the "branch" (forth has no branches!) comes after the conditional. My
>question stands: why your way is more logical? what makes it worth to
>take a different approach from all the other stack based languages
>which use blocks?

I never said it was more logical, I said I prefer it. But my
point was that in forth the conditional comes just before the if
token. That's the only part that interests me. I find it easier
to read than having to backtrack bast two code branches when I
come across the if token to find out what the condition was.

>Please, don't tell is the forth way when it is not. In forth, IF only
>takes one argument and is compiled to a conditional jump to THEN (or
>ELSE).

How is that not a branch?

-- 
Kris Maglione
There's no sense being exact about something if you don't even know
what you're talking about.
	--John von Neumann