May be that I don't understand the real problem but: If all the words between ( and -- are known types we got a new typed definition of a word. In other case the definition is untyped.
Probably attempting to define a new untyped version of a word will issue an error. Fer El mar, 01-07-2008 a las 17:09 -0500, Slava Pestov escribió: > 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
