I like dup <byte-array>, personally, but this pattern (used sometimes with tri 
also) is an experiment in readability avoiding stack shuffle words. As you say, 
the code is identical, but often fewer tokens is preferred. 

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 11:46 AM, Alexander Ilin <ajs...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> 
> Hello!
> 
>  Noticed this code:
> 
> ```
> M: windows-crypto-context random-bytes* ( n windows-crypto-context -- bytes )
>    handle>> swap [ ] [ <byte-array> ] bi
>    [ CryptGenRandom win32-error=0/f ] keep ; 
> ```
> 
>  Is the construction `[ ] [ <byte-array> ] bi` somehow idiomatic?
>  How is it better than `dup <byte-array>`? Is it more readable?
>  Or should it be replaced with the shorter version?
> 
> ---=====--- 
> Александр
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Factor-talk mailing list
> Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk

Reply via email to