On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:07:11 -0500 (CDT), Michel Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I propose you and I work together to make a > totally Forth-language agnostic Forth > micro-kernel. This kernel can be very > minimalistic, a stacik, a machine state hash, > and definitions for the words "code", "next", > "word", and "'" (tick) all having standard Forth > behavior, a simple dictionary and a simple eval > loop. > > The micro kernel then just goes through some > common stuff (parse args, load files, init > blocks, etc.) and then bootstrap the larger > language from some optionally specified language > file.
. . . > Do you think this is a good idea? I can certain > help along with implementing words that Parakeet > and Forth share. I myself have never > implemented a complete Forth, but I've given a > couple a stab, both direct thread models. It's certainly worth investigating. I'm interested in seeing what your new code looks like once you've implemented those ideas (moving to a bootstrapper). As a first step, I'm going to move to inlining all words (both built-in and user defined). Doing this (and adding push/pop macros) will bring our code bases a lot closer. Once this is done I'll make another release and we can compare code again. -- matt
