On Jul 29, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Eduardo Cavazos wrote: > I.e. you'd need an 'EXTEND:' for every generic you're extending. Thus > the 'IN:' is a cleaner route. > > If you don't explicitly use 'IN:' or 'EXTEND:', then a new generic > will be > created in the current vocabulary.
I like that idea. What if EXTEND: word were the actual defining word, so instead of saying this: EXTEND: nth sequences : nth ( :my-sequence -- elt ) ... ; you could just say: EXTEND: nth sequences ( :my-sequence -- elt ) ... ; That would require less bookkeeping in the parser, and it's unlikely you'd use an EXTEND: separate from a definition. -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
