,---------------.
| Contributions |
`---------------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2023-09-23 01:06:43  ruv  wrote:
| requestClarification - Why do we use +n and not u in the stack diagram for n>r and nr>
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/fix-stack-comments-for-n-r-and-nr-#contribution-310
`------------------------------------------
A citation from the Discussion section (in [r1079](https://forth-standard.org/proposals/fix-stack-comments-for-n-r-and-nr-?hideDiff#reply-1079)):

> On the data stack `x_n ... x_1 +n` because that is the way we usually specify a numbered number of cells (even for `+n=0`). See, e.g., `get-order`.

Well, in [`get-order`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/search/GET-ORDER) _n_ (the signed number data type) is probably incorrectly used after [`set-order`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/search/SET-ORDER), where _n_ can be `-1`. 

But in other words:
[`pick`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/PICK),
[`roll`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/ROLL),
[`cs-pick`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/CS-PICK),
[`cs-roll`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/CS-ROLL),
— the unsigned number data type (identified by _u_) is used to indicate the number of items.

So the question is: why is `+n` used in the stack diagrams for `n>r` and `nr>` instead of `u`?



,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2023-09-23 08:25:11  Klaus_Schleisiek  replies:
| proposal - DEFER this not :-)
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/defer-this-not-#reply-1108
`------------------------------------------
What's wrong with 
DEFER foo
bla 
bla
:noname  <code for foo> ; IS foo
No additional name needed.


,------------------------------------------
| 2023-09-23 10:04:40  ruv  replies:
| proposal - DEFER this not :-)
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/defer-this-not-#reply-1109
`------------------------------------------
@Klaus_Schleisiekavatar,

Form a readability point of view, "additional name" doesn't mean a dictionary entry, but additional mention of the name.

And, in the case of mutual recursion, this looks differ:
```
defer FOO

: BAR ( ... -- ... )
  bla bla
  FOO
  bla bla
;

:noname ( ... -- ... )
  bla bla
  BAR
  bla bla
; is FOO
```

What's wrong is poor readability. Since at the begin of the second definition it's unclear what is it for.

I can add a comment at the begin of this anonymous definition:
```
:noname ( ... -- ... ) \ the word "FOO"
  bla bla
  BAR
  bla bla
; is FOO
```

Such a comment is not elegant. And moreover, by that I introduce additional mention of the name `FOO`.