--- gforth/Attic/gforth.ds 1996/02/19 18:57:26 1.32 +++ gforth/Attic/gforth.ds 1996/09/10 16:08:37 1.35 @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ personal machines. This manual correspon * Words:: Forth words available in Gforth * ANS conformance:: Implementation-defined options etc. * Model:: The abstract machine of Gforth +* Integrating Gforth:: Forth as scripting language for applications. * Emacs and Gforth:: The Gforth Mode * Internals:: Implementation details * Bugs:: How to report them @@ -848,7 +849,7 @@ The format of floating point numbers rec interpreter is: a signed decimal number, possibly containing a decimal point (@code{.}), followed by @code{E} or @code{e}, optionally followed by a signed integer (the exponent). E.g., @code{1e} ist the same as -@code{+1.0e+1}. Note that a number without @code{e} +@code{+1.0e+0}. Note that a number without @code{e} is not interpreted as floating-point number, but as double (if the number contains a @code{.}) or single precision integer. Also, conversions between string and floating point numbers always use base @@ -1930,8 +1931,8 @@ stack easier. The whole definition must be in one line. @end itemize -Locals defined in this way behave like @code{VALUE}s -(@xref{Values}). I.e., they are initialized from the stack. Using their +Locals defined in this way behave like @code{VALUE}s (@xref{Simple +Defining Words}). I.e., they are initialized from the stack. Using their name produces their value. Their value can be changed using @code{TO}. Since this syntax is supported by Gforth directly, you need not do @@ -1960,11 +1961,247 @@ locals wordset. @section Defining Words @menu -* Values:: +* Simple Defining Words:: +* Colon Definitions:: +* User-defined Defining Words:: +* Supplying names:: +* Interpretation and Compilation Semantics:: @end menu -@node Values, , Defining Words, Defining Words -@subsection Values +@node Simple Defining Words, Colon Definitions, Defining Words, Defining Words +@subsection Simple Defining Words + +doc-constant +doc-2constant +doc-fconstant +doc-variable +doc-2variable +doc-fvariable +doc-create +doc-user +doc-value +doc-to +doc-defer +doc-is + +@node Colon Definitions, User-defined Defining Words, Simple Defining Words, Defining Words +@subsection Colon Definitions + +@example +: name ( ... -- ... ) + word1 word2 word3 ; +@end example + +creates a word called @code{name}, that, upon execution, executes +@code{word1 word2 word3}. @code{name} is a @dfn{(colon) definition}. + +The explanation above is somewhat superficial. @xref{Interpretation and +Compilation Semantics} for an in-depth discussion of some of the issues +involved. + +doc-: +doc-; + +@node User-defined Defining Words, Supplying names, Colon Definitions, Defining Words +@subsection User-defined Defining Words + +You can create new defining words simply by wrapping defining-time code +around existing defining words and putting the sequence in a colon +definition. + +If you want the words defined by your defining words to behave +differently than words defined with standard defining words, you can +write your defining word like this: + +@example +: def-word ( "name" -- ) + Create @var{code1} +DOES> ( ... -- ... ) + @var{code2} ; + +def-word name +@end example + +Technically, this fragment defines a defining word @code{def-word}, and +a word @code{name}; when you execute @code{name}, the address of the +body of @code{name} is put on the data stack and @var{code2} is executed +(the address of the body of @code{name} is the address @code{HERE} +returns immediately after the @code{CREATE}). E.g., you can implement +@code{Constant} in this way: + +@example +: constant ( w "name" -- ) + create , +DOES> ( -- w ) + @ ; +@end example + +When you create a constant with @code{5 constant five}, first a new word +@code{five} is created, then the value 5 is laid down in the body of +@code{five} with @code{,}. When @code{five} is invoked, the address of +the body is put on the stack, and @code{@@} retrieves the value 5. + +In the example above the stack comment after the @code{DOES>} specifies +the stack effect of the defined words, not the stack effect of the +following code (the following code expects the address of the body on +the top of stack, which is not reflected in the stack comment). This is +the convention that I use and recommend (it clashes a bit with using +locals declarations for stack effect specification, though). + +@subsubsection Applications of @code{CREATE..DOES>} + +You may not be sure how to use this feature. Here are some usage +patterns: + +When you see a sequence of code occurring several times, and you can +identify a meaning, you will factor it out as a colon definition. When +you see similar colon definitions, you can factor them using +@code{CREATE..DOES>}. E.g., an assembler usually defines several words +that look very similar: +@example +: ori, ( reg-taget reg-source n -- ) + 0 asm-reg-reg-imm ; +: andi, ( reg-taget reg-source n -- ) + 1 asm-reg-reg-imm ; +@end example + +This could be factored with: +@example +: reg-reg-imm ( op-code -- ) + create , +DOES> ( reg-taget reg-source n -- ) + @ asm-reg-reg-imm ; + +0 reg-reg-imm ori, +1 reg-reg-imm andi, +@end example + +Another view of @code{CREATE..DOES>} is to consider it as a crude way to +supply a part of the parameters for a word (known as @dfn{currying} in +the functional language community). E.g., @code{+} needs two +parameters. Creating versions of @code{+} with one parameter fixed can +be done like this: +@example +: curry+ ( n1 -- ) + create , +DOES> ( n2 -- n1+n2 ) + @ + ; + + 3 curry+ 3+ +-2 curry+ 2- +@end example + +@subsubsection The gory details of @code{CREATE..DOES>} + +doc-does> + +This means that you need not use @code{CREATE} and @code{DOES>} in the +same definition; E.g., you can put the @code{DOES>}-part in a separate +definition. This allows us to, e.g., select among different DOES>-parts: +@example +: does1 +DOES> ( ... -- ... ) + ... ; + +: does2 +DOES> ( ... -- ... ) + ... ; + +: def-word ( ... -- ... ) + create ... + IF + does1 + ELSE + does2 + ENDIF ; +@end example + +In a standard program you can apply a @code{DOES>}-part only if the last +word was defined with @code{CREATE}. In Gforth, the @code{DOES>}-part +will override the behaviour of the last word defined in any case. In a +standard program, you can use @code{DOES>} only in a colon +definition. In Gforth, you can also use it in interpretation state, in a +kind of one-shot mode: +@example +CREATE name ( ... -- ... ) + @var{initialization} +DOES> + @var{code} ; +@end example +This is equivalwent to the standard +@example +:noname +DOES> + @var{code} ; +CREATE name EXECUTE ( ... -- ... ) + @var{initialization} +@end example + +You can get the address of the body of a word with + +doc->body + +@node Supplying names, Interpretation and Compilation Semantics, User-defined Defining Words, Defining Words +@subsection Supplying names for the defined words + +By default, defining words take the names for the defined words from the +input stream. Sometimes you want to supply the name from a string. You +can do this with + +doc-nextname + +E.g., + +@example +s" foo" nextname create +@end example +is equivalent to +@example +create foo +@end example + +Sometimes you want to define a word without a name. You can do this with + +doc-noname + +To make any use of the newly defined word, you need its execution +token. You can get it with + +doc-lastxt + +E.g., you can initialize a deferred word with an anonymous colon +definition: +@example +Defer deferred +noname : ( ... -- ... ) + ... ; +lastxt IS deferred +@end example + +@code{lastxt} also works when the last word was not defined as +@code{noname}. + +The standard has also recognized the need for anonymous words and +provides + +doc-:noname + +This leaves the execution token for the word on the stack after the +closing @code{;}. You can rewrite the last example with @code{:noname}: +@example +Defer deferred +:noname ( ... -- ... ) + ... ; +IS deferred +@end example + +@node Interpretation and Compilation Semantics, , Supplying names, Defining Words +@subsection Interpretation and Compilation Semantics + +doc-immediate +doc-interpret/compile: + + @node Wordlists, Files, Defining Words, Words @section Wordlists @@ -2140,9 +2377,10 @@ and use that in your assembly code. Another option for implementing normal and defining words efficiently is: adding the wanted functionality to the source of Gforth. For normal -words you just have to edit @file{primitives}, defining words (for fast -defined words) may require changes in @file{engine.c}, -@file{kernal.fs}, @file{prims2x.fs}, and possibly @file{cross.fs}. +words you just have to edit @file{primitives} (@pxref{Automatic +Generation}), defining words (equivalent to @code{;CODE} words, for fast +defined words) may require changes in @file{engine.c}, @file{kernal.fs}, +@file{prims2x.fs}, and possibly @file{cross.fs}. @node Threading Words, , Assembler and Code words, Words @@ -2173,10 +2411,10 @@ doc-douser: doc-dodefer: doc-dofield: -Currently there is no installation-independent way for recogizing words -defined by a @code{CREATE}...@code{DOES>} word; however, once you know -that a word is defined by a @code{CREATE}...@code{DOES>} word, you can -use @code{>DOES-CODE}. +You can recognize words defined by a @code{CREATE}...@code{DOES>} word +with @code{>DOES-CODE}. If the word was defined in that way, the value +returned is different from 0 and identifies the @code{DOES>} used by the +defining word. @node ANS conformance, Model, Words, Top @chapter ANS conformance @@ -2184,7 +2422,7 @@ use @code{>DOES-CODE}. To the best of our knowledge, Gforth is an ANS Forth System -@itemize +@itemize @bullet @item providing the Core Extensions word set @item providing the Block word set @item providing the Block Extensions word set @@ -2203,7 +2441,7 @@ ANS Forth System @item providing the Memory-Allocation word set @item providing the Memory-Allocation Extensions word set (that one's easy) @item providing the Programming-Tools word set -@item providing @code{;code}, @code{AHEAD}, @code{ASSEMBLER}, @code{BYE}, @code{CODE}, @code{CS-PICK}, @code{CS-ROLL}, @code{STATE}, @code{[ELSE]}, @code{[IF]}, @code{[THEN]} from the Programming-Tools Extensions word set +@item providing @code{;CODE}, @code{AHEAD}, @code{ASSEMBLER}, @code{BYE}, @code{CODE}, @code{CS-PICK}, @code{CS-ROLL}, @code{STATE}, @code{[ELSE]}, @code{[IF]}, @code{[THEN]} from the Programming-Tools Extensions word set @item providing the Search-Order word set @item providing the Search-Order Extensions word set @item providing the String word set @@ -3198,9 +3436,11 @@ Not implemented (yet). @table @i @item changing the compilation wordlist (during compilation): -The definition is put into the wordlist that is the compilation wordlist -when @code{REVEAL} is executed (by @code{;}, @code{DOES>}, -@code{RECURSIVE}, etc.). +The word is entered into the wordlist that was the compilation wordlist +at the start of the definition. Any changes to the name field (e.g., +@code{immediate}) or the code field (e.g., when executing @code{DOES>}) +are applied to the latest defined word (as reported by @code{last} or +@code{lastxt}), if possible, irrespective of the compilation wordlist. @item search order empty (@code{previous}): @code{abort" Vocstack empty"}. @@ -3210,15 +3450,67 @@ when @code{REVEAL} is executed (by @code @end table - -@node Model, Emacs and Gforth, ANS conformance, Top +@node Model, Integrating Gforth, ANS conformance, Top @chapter Model -@node Emacs and Gforth, Internals, Model, Top +This chapter has yet to be written. It will contain information, on +which internal structures you can rely. + +@node Integrating Gforth, Emacs and Gforth, Model, Top +@chapter Integrating Gforth into C programs + +This is not yet implemented. + +Several people like to use Forth as scripting language for applications +that are otherwise written in C, C++, or some other language. + +The Forth system ATLAST provides facilities for embedding it into +applications; unfortunately it has several disadvantages: most +implorantly, it is not based on ANS Forth, and it is apparently dead +(i.e., not developed further and not supported). The facilities +provided by Gforth in this area are inspired by ATLASTs facilities, so +making the switch should not be hard. + +We also tried to design the interface such that it can easily be +implemented by other Forth systems, so that we may one day arrive at a +standardized interface. Such a standard interface would allow you to +replace the Forth system without having to rewrite C code. + +You embed the Gforth interpreter by linking with the library +@code{libgforth.a} (give the compiler the option @code{-lgforth}). All +global symbols in this library that belong to the interface, have the +prefix @code{forth_}. (Global symbols that are used internally have the +prefix @code{gforth_}). + +You can include the declarations of Forth types and the functions and +variables of the interface with @code{include }. + +Types. + +Variables. + +Data and FP Stack pointer. Area sizes. + +functions. + +forth_init(imagefile) +forth_evaluate(string) exceptions? +forth_goto(address) (or forth_execute(xt)?) +forth_continue() (a corountining mechanism) + +Adding primitives. + +No checking. + +Signals? + +Accessing the Stacks + +@node Emacs and Gforth, Internals, Integrating Gforth, Top @chapter Emacs and Gforth Gforth comes with @file{gforth.el}, an improved version of -@file{forth.el} by Goran Rydqvist (icluded in the TILE package). The +@file{forth.el} by Goran Rydqvist (included in the TILE package). The improvements are a better (but still not perfect) handling of indentation. I have also added comment paragraph filling (@kbd{M-q}), commenting (@kbd{C-x \}) and uncommenting (@kbd{C-u C-x \}) regions and @@ -3243,7 +3535,7 @@ several tags files at the same time (e.g and one for your program, @pxref{Select Tags Table,,Selecting a Tags Table,emacs, Emacs Manual}). The TAGS file for the preloaded words is @file{$(datadir)/gforth/$(VERSION)/TAGS} (e.g., -@file{/usr/local/share/gforth/0.2/TAGS}). +@file{/usr/local/share/gforth/0.2.0/TAGS}). To get all these benefits, add the following lines to your @file{.emacs} file: @@ -3298,7 +3590,7 @@ limitations: GNU C, the version of C pro GNU C Manual}). Its labels as values feature (@pxref{Labels as Values, , Labels as Values, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}) makes direct and indirect threading possible, its @code{long long} type (@pxref{Long Long, , -Double-Word Integers, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}) corresponds to Forths +Double-Word Integers, gcc.info, GNU C Manual}) corresponds to Forth's double numbers@footnote{Unfortunately, long longs are not implemented properly on all machines (e.g., on alpha-osf1, long longs are only 64 bits, the same size as longs (and pointers), but they should be twice as @@ -3547,7 +3839,7 @@ An important optimization for stack mach engines, is keeping one or more of the top stack items in registers. If a word has the stack effect @var{in1}...@var{inx} @code{--} @var{out1}...@var{outy}, keeping the top @var{n} items in registers -@itemize +@itemize @bullet @item is better than keeping @var{n-1} items, if @var{x>=n} and @var{y>=n}, due to fewer loads from and stores to the stack. @@ -3581,7 +3873,7 @@ The TOS optimization makes the automatic bit more complicated. Just replacing all occurrences of @code{sp[0]} by @code{TOS} is not sufficient. There are some special cases to consider: -@itemize +@itemize @bullet @item In the case of @code{dup ( w -- w w )} the generator must not eliminate the store to the original location of the item on the stack, if the TOS optimization is turned on. @@ -3783,7 +4075,7 @@ VolksForth descends from F83. It was wri Pennemann, Georg Rehfeld and Dietrich Weineck for the C64 (called UltraForth there) in the mid-80s and ported to the Atari ST in 1986. -Hennry Laxen and Mike Perry wrote F83 as a model implementation of the +Henry Laxen and Mike Perry wrote F83 as a model implementation of the Forth-83 standard. !! Pedigree? When? A team led by Bill Ragsdale implemented fig-Forth on many processors in