Thank you for your email , So what is the reason for referencing an older version of ( Is it purely historical ?
Kind Regards Dave Selby (Engineer 784) On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, 22:44 Anton Ertl, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 10:05:28PM +0000, dave selby wrote: > > Hello > > > > Not sure if this is the correct forum to ask but there is a bit of code I > > don't understand. I am looking to define (( .. )) and was looking at ( ) > > code, it all makes sense except for the first line > > > > loadfile @ 0= IF postpone ( EXIT THEN > > > > Why would you postpone an earlier definition of ( if you are on the > command > > line and not compiling ? > > We want to append the compilation semantics of the previous ( to the > new (. For (, the compilation semantics, interpretation, and > execution semantics are the same (it's a proper immediate word). > > What would you write? > > loadfile @ 0= IF ( EXIT THEN > > No, that would just comment out the code starting with "(". > > loadfile @ 0= IF [compile] ( EXIT THEN > > That has the same effect for "(" as using POSTPONE. > > loadfile @ 0= IF ['] ( compile, EXIT THEN > > For "(", this has the same effect as using POSTPONE. > > - anton >
