[retroforth] Re: Further thoughts on blocks
- From: Ton ´t Lam <ton.tlam@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: retroforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:30:58 +0100
Ron Aaron wrote:
>On Thu, January 20, 2005 10:56, Ton ´t Lam said:
>
>
>
>>Keep the code of rf clean. Better use the current way of including
>>blocks (or a 'load') and then a store of the current Forth environment.
>>This means that the new binary file has all words already compiled. Thus
>>a next start of rf is faster. With the current available diskspace and
>>memory the problem can't be that rf itself is 3000 or 5000 bytes.
>>
>>store ( a a # -- ) | address of command to execute, new file name
>>
>>' doit " rf.new" store
>>
>>Then rf.new will start running 'doit'. A zero address causes rf.new to
>>start in normal mode.
>>
>>
>
>Do you have an implementation of 'store'? I would like one if you do (Win32
>and Linux, please :-)
>
>Ron
>
>
Regretfully, I don't have this implentation. For now I _try_ to create
a 'system'. See my
other mail.
Best Regards,
Ton
Other related posts:
