Fri May 30 15:35:18 CEST 2008

Forth syntax, philosophical approach

meaning, through natural language.. i do this too little with the
tough problems that turn out to be huge time sinks..

The problem:

  It should be possible to _define_ new Forth substitution words,
  which is implemented by define-syntax, _before_ the expansion of
  body code.

  In Scheme, due to the use of s-expressions, this is easy. In Forth
  however, the names are burried inside a muck of words: expanding all
  substitition words to expose those words that might yield the
  definition of _new_ substitition words is (probably) not possible.

  Question 1: is it at all possible to fish out these macro
  definitions? If so, how?

  Question 2: if it's not possible, can we formally acknowledge it as
  a shortcoming of Forth syntax and work around it?