How would we distinguish between a typed and untyped definition in this case?
Slava On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Fernando Alava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about this? > > : nth ( integer array -- elt ) ... ; ! StrongForth-like > > The words integer and array are previously defined as valid types. > > And if you don't need types you can always write: > > : nth ( i a -- elt ) ... ; ! Untyped definition > > I think you don't need to specify both i and integer if later you can't > use i as a local variable inside the word definition. > > Best regards, > Fer > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! > Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, > along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness > and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 > _______________________________________________ > Factor-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
