2025-03-11 00:10:52 <amby        > i expect it varies depending on how many pixels you're changing
2025-03-11 00:22:00 <crc         > I've not seen any clear answers on that
2025-03-11 18:57:45 <user51      > How can words like IF and BEGIN work in normal mode?
2025-03-11 18:57:53 <user51      > Let's not get started on RECURSE  :)
2025-03-11 20:06:10 <veltas      > user51: They would skip input, and return back to start of input, by modifying >IN
2025-03-11 20:06:16 <veltas      > That's how [IF] [THEN] work
2025-03-11 20:06:27 <veltas      > And how I write loops with [IF] [THEN]
2025-03-11 20:07:34 <veltas      > e.g.  10  DUP [IF] 1- .  4 >IN ! [THEN]
2025-03-11 20:08:31 <veltas      > However I think this is pointless because it's quite limited, inconvenient, it can be *very* slow on some systems, and it's trivial to write/forget a word for a loop
2025-03-11 20:18:57 <pgimeno     > I've been thinking about that; one idea is to compile to a temporary word and execute it when the token stack is balanced again
2025-03-11 20:20:39 <pgimeno     > not applicable to RECURSE, of course
2025-03-11 20:21:27 <pgimeno     > I don't understand why RECURSE had to be introduced though, is it really that common to use the previous definition of a word when compiling it?
2025-03-11 20:23:07 <pgimeno     > !gforth : a ." previous def;" ; : a ." new def;" a ." new again;" ; a
2025-03-11 20:23:27 <pgimeno     > gforth
2025-03-11 20:24:12 <pgimeno     > oops, I mean, gforth_eval_bot is gone, didn't notice
2025-03-11 20:26:18 <pgimeno     > to me it's just natural to use the name of the word being defined; the juppy does that
2025-03-11 21:15:47 <veltas      > I think it's quite common to extend existing words
2025-03-11 21:16:05 <veltas      > e.g. add overflow detection to a stack word
2025-03-11 21:17:33 <veltas      > It also works as a sort of private namespace mechanism, I suppose
2025-03-11 21:17:47 <veltas      > You just build up a definition by constantly redefining smaller pieces with the same name