BruceRMcF wrote:
In programming in fig-Forth, WORD is also a general purpose word ... while the fig-Forth use of WORD in it's outer interpreter is WHY it is defined as it is, it can also be used in general programming.
I am still willing to bet that even in general programming, everything is separated by spaces. Without spaces, the English language could not be read or understood efficiently. Even math expressions need to be separated by spaces to fully comprehend the equation. There is no general programming that would ever use more space than what I laid out as a requirement above.
Quote:
For a bespoke implementation based on fig-Forth, that isn't aiming to support the whole fig-Forth model, and if you aren't hosting any source that makes that kind of use of WORD, then there certainly does seem to be an opportunity to squeeze that space down a bit more ... just as you can squeeze the PNO buffer down if you don't have any double number output capability.
The Fig-Forth model never was whole. It started out as a general idea of what a Forth system should look like. That is why it is continually being improved upon. Standards keep changing, programmers keep revising it ..etc. The nicest thing for me, about Fig Forth is, it is very compact and easy to change and/or make it compatible with other Forth standards. To make as simple as one wants or as complicated as one needs. But without understanding the complete workings of Forth, those changes can be difficult. I am like that guy on "The Matrix" who asks "Why?". He says "Without Why? There is no purpose. No meaning."
Quote:
In other words, the ultimate answer to "why 68 bytes?" in the fig-Forth model seems like "because it's handy", not because it is essential.
Like the teacher always says "show your home work". I wasn't looking for a general answer. I was hoping someone already had that knowledge and would show me how that number was arrived at. Only then can one truly understand the workings of Forth. And since 99% of the postings on this forum are about making the Forth system either more efficient or more flexible, then it becomes a necessity to understand Forth's complete workings.
Without posting here, I would have never known that some Forths copy a word to HERE+2. There must be a reason for this as well. If you could point to an example of which Forth uses it, I would like to see it. If it is just done that way because its handy, that is fine. I still want to see it. Programming that way may have made some other code more efficient and/or faster.
I guess for future questions I will have to learn to change my questions to "How is the 68 bytes between HERE and PAD calculated."
But I am sure I will still get silly answers like "It was a random number picked out of a hat." or "That's just the way it is".
With answers like these, no wonder no-one posts to these Forums any more.