Relative addressing for BPL etc in a 65c02 disassembler

[JimBoyd]

GARTHWILSON wrote:

Since there's already a S>D word that extends a single to a double, you could shorten the name above to something like B>N.

Since words that operate on a byte in Forth tend to start with a 'C' such as C@ C! and C, what about naming it C>S ?

[JeeK]

JimBoyd wrote:

GARTHWILSON wrote:

Since there's already a S>D word that extends a single to a double, you could shorten the name above to something like B>N.

Since words that operate on a byte in Forth tend to start with a 'C' such as C@ C! and C, what about naming it C>S ?

AFAIK the C prefix words seems to be more for memory access words than stack manipulating words. B>N looks good to me, possibly B>S fits slightly better with S>D ...

[JimBoyd]

JeeK wrote:

AFAIK the C prefix words seems to be more for memory access words than stack manipulating words.

Not according to the naming conventions in the book Thinking Forth by Leo Brodie. Here is a short excerpt.

Code: Select all

Meaning          Form    Example
         .
         .
Numeric Types
byte length      Cname   C@