Revision as of 12:40, 26 January 2021 (view source) Chunes (talk \| contribs) (→‎Quackery: reply) ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:05, 26 January 2021 (view source) Chunes (talk \| contribs) m (→‎Quackery: oops) Newer edit →
Line 26: ::: Speaking of style, the way you write code is how I always would have preferred to write Factor, with the 3 aligned columns for code, names, and stack comments. But it wasn't the 'official' way to write Factor, so I never did that. I'm happy there is someone else out there who prefers this way. ::: Which reminds me, I have a question for you about stack comments. Words like <code>witheach</code> have a stack comment like <code>( a --> b ) or ( [ --> [ )</code>. This makes sense strictly from the ''stack'' standpoint, but as a ''word'' contract I find it doesn't give me the picture I'm looking for to understand the word, since there is no indication of the nest it expects following the word. Is this something that could be resolved with a stack comment notation, like <code>( [ . [] --> [ )</code>? Just spitballing here; the <code>.</code> indicates the word position, while the <code>[]</code> indicates a nest following the word. No wrong answer either way; I understand wanting to keep it simple. --[[User:Chunes\|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes\|talk]]) 12:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User talk:GordonCharlton: Difference between revisions

User talk:GordonCharlton (view source)