Hi Enoch,
> There's a reason for my asking. When I try to merge your new VALUE > implementation with my repository things stop working... The previous > implementation worked for me just fine. What has really changed is the parameter for the fetch/store methods inside of the values. That has changed from the content of the first flash cell to the address of the first flash cell for a given VALUE. So a simple @e is no longer sufficient but a "@i @e" sequence. I'm not completely satisfied with the current state however. I somewhat dislike the idea that the table with the two execution tokens is copied. It may be smarter to have only one such table and keep the pointer to it inside each VALUE only. But 5.2 is not released yet so I can still change the API any time again or construct a value factory word. A defining word (BUILD-VALUE) that creates other defining words (DVALUE) that create the final words (F_CPU). ;) > If I knew what you are trying > to accomplish I could have been of help :-) Oh, you seem to believe in a planned and structured development strategy. Matthias ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ Amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
