Re: Reformulation of "STATE @ IF"
Hans Bezemer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:06:22 -1000, "Elizabeth D. Rather"
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I don't see anything wrong with STATE @ IF ... for those who insist
>> doing this sort of thing despite all the good advice based on years
>> experience: it's rarely a good idea.
> Unless the TC thinks it's a good idea to do so. So we're stuck with
> the horror that is TO (which uses state) and his little brother IS
Well, TO doesn't really have to use STATE, as we discussed here a
while back, and a smart compiler can recognize TO and optimize it. I
don't know why anyone thinks that IS should be state-smart; it doesn't
> and I have trouble explaining why ." in interpretation doesn't work
> and [char] is the way to inline a character while compiling. Point
> is: statesmart is easier for the casual programmer.
And it's harder for long-term maintanance. There's the conflict.