Page 2 of 2
Re: Relative addressing for BPL etc in a 65c02 disassembler
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:34 pm
by JimBoyd
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 ?
Re: Relative addressing for BPL etc in a 65c02 disassembler
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:49 pm
by JeeK
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 ...
Re: Relative addressing for BPL etc in a 65c02 disassembler
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:19 pm
by JimBoyd
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@