Re: [Amforth-devel] 2variable definition - 2 versions

[Leon M. <leo...@gm...>]

I think I'm understanding this now, so hopefully one more round of
questions will clear everything up.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Matthias Trute <mt...@we...> wrote:
> They usually reflect the bleeding edge of development but
> not every subversion commit. Currently it shows the
> brand new implementation of variable based upon constant...

The description of HERE reads "address of the next free dictionary
cell" -- which sounds like the old version. So is the code bleeding
edge but not the comments?

http://amforth.sourceforge.net/words/XT_HERE.html

> You'd better read the sources, since the html versions are somewhat
> broken, the script generating the files tries to make forth
> code from the assembly sources, with mixed success however..
...
> The sequence (literal) <number> is a 1:1 translation of a
> compiled number. Think of it as the number only.

So the html is based off the sources, which has definitions that are
essentially compiled by hand? But if I were defining VARIABLE
interactively, ':' would take care of adding (LITERAL) for me?

> The (create) word is a factor from the defining words that
> makes only a vocabulary entry without an XT or data field.
> The XT is filled afterwardds by words like : (with the DO_COLON
> address) or variable/constant (with PFA_DOVARIABLE) etc. A RAM
> based dictionary would not need to do so, but a flash based one
> will honor the not necessairy flash re-write that is needed while
> overwriting the XT.

Is the "(CREATE) COMPILE COMPILE" in the definition of VARIABLE
another artifact of being compiled by hand? If I were defining
VARIABLE interactively, I would be able to use CREATE?

Thanks again for your patience in answering all of this.

-Leon