Hello Matthias, Matthias Trute <mtr...@web.de> writes: > Hi Enoch, > >> Isn't the following more sensible? >> >> : is_low? ( pinmask portaddr -- f) >> - c@ invert and >> + c@ and 0= >> ; >> >> : is_high? ( pinmask portaddr -- f) >> - c@ and >> + c@ and 0> >> ; >> >> Thanks, Enoch. >> >> 1) the writeup says they return "true if..." which means return -1 and >> not a bitmask. > > technically only FALSE is specified: 0. TRUE is everything else. But > I agree, that a flag should be wellformed. Do your changes work in all > cases?
Yes, so far :-) According to "Forth 2012 RC1" 3.1.3.1 Flags, standard words should return -1 or 0 only. I was surprised to find that emit? returns the bitmask 32 rather than -1 (what caused me trouble with bitnames.frt implementation). Thanks, Enoch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_123012 _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ Amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
