Adding to a definition

[Programmingkid]

      Is there a way to add words to the end of a definition? If my word is declared like this:

: myword
	firstWord
	secondWord
;

is there a way to append a word to the end of this word so it looks like this:

: myword
	firstWord
	secondWord	
	thirdWord
;

[Tarl Neustaedter]

      On 2012-Mar-22 00:09 , Programmingkid wrote:
  Is there a way to add words to the end of a
definition? If my word is declared like this:

 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord
 ;

 is there a way to append a word to the end of this word so it looks like this:

 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord	
 	thirdWord
 ;
The usual way I'd do something like that if I had to patch a live system 
would be as follows:

ok : anotherWord secondWord thirdWord ;
ok patch anotherWord secondWord myword
ok

[Stephen Ehring]

On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Tarl Neustaedter wrote:

  On 2012-Mar-22 00:09 , Programmingkid wrote:
  Is there a way to add words to the end of a
definition? If my word is declared like this:
 
 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord
 ;
 
 is there a way to append a word to the end of this word so it looks like this:
 
 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord	
 	thirdWord
 ;
 
 The usual way I'd do something like that if I had to patch a live system would be as
follows:
 
 ok : anotherWord secondWord thirdWord ;
 ok patch anotherWord secondWord myword
 ok
You can also use (patch) with the XT's if the words are not externally visible.

Steve

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

      On 22/03/12 12:16, Stephen Ehring wrote:

  On 2012-Mar-22
00:09 , Programmingkid wrote:
  Is there a way to add words to the end of a
definition? If my word is declared like this:

 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord
 ;

 is there a way to append a word to the end of this word so it looks like this:

 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord	
 	thirdWord
 ;
 The usual way I'd do something like that if I had to patch a live system would be as
follows:

 ok : anotherWord secondWord thirdWord ;
 ok patch anotherWord secondWord myword
 ok
 You can also use (patch) with the XT's if the words are not externally visible.

 Steve
I'm fairly sure that OpenBIOS don't implement either patch or (patch) at 
the moment. If it's just a case of replacing one XT with another within 
a word definition, then it shouldn't be too hard - or does it do 
something more clever?


ATB,

Mark.

[Stephen Ehring]

On Apr 13, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:

  On 22/03/12 12:16, Stephen Ehring wrote:
 
  On
2012-Mar-22 00:09 , Programmingkid wrote:
  Is there a way to add words to the end of a
definition? If my word is declared like this:
 
 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord
 ;
 
 is there a way to append a word to the end of this word so it looks like this:
 
 : myword
 	firstWord
 	secondWord	
 	thirdWord
 ;
 
 The usual way I'd do something like that if I had to patch a live system would be as
follows:
 
 ok : anotherWord secondWord thirdWord ;
 ok patch anotherWord secondWord myword
 ok
 
 You can also use (patch) with the XT's if the words are not externally visible.
 
 Steve
 
 I'm fairly sure that OpenBIOS don't implement either patch or (patch) at the
moment. If it's just a case of replacing one XT with another within a word definition,
then it shouldn't be too hard - or does it do something more clever?

I'm surprised this isn't implemented. From the IEEE 1275 spec:

patch	( "new-name< >old-name< >word-to-patch< >" -- ) Change
contents of word-to-patch.
In the compiled definition of word-to-patch, change the first occurrence of old-name to
new-name. Works properly even if old-name and/or new-name are numbers.
Used as: ok patch 555 test patch-me to edit the definition of patch-me, replacing the
command test with the literal value 555. Implementation note:
When replacing a command with a number, an implementation might need to automatically
create a named constant value for the replacement number. (The reason is that Forth
commands often compile into a smaller memory space than literal numbers, so patching a
number in place of an existing command is a problem.) A suggested name format is h#---,
i.e., the number 555 (hex) would be named “h#555” . A name containing only digits (i.e.,
555 constant 555) is not recommended, since changing base would cause incorrect evaluation
of subsequent uses of that named value.

(patch)	( new-n1 num1? old-n2 num2? xt -- ) Change contents of command indicated by xt.
In the compiled definition of the command indicated by xt, change the first occurrence of
old-n2 to new-n1. n1 and n2 can each be either an execution token or a literal number. The
flag num1?, if true, indicates that new-n1 is a literal number. If false, it indicates
that new-n1 is an execution token. The flag num2? is interpreted similarly.
Used as: ['] new-name false 555 true ['] patch-me (patch) to edit the definition
of patch-me, replacing the value 555 with the command new-name. See: patch for more
information.

[Mark Cave-Ayland]

      On 13/04/12 17:06, Stephen Ehring wrote:

  I'm surprised this isn't implemented. From the
IEEE 1275 spec:

 patch ( "new-name< >old-name< >word-to-patch< >" -- ) Change
contents of
 word-to-patch.
 In the compiled definition of word-to-patch, change the first occurrence
 of old-name to new-name. Works properly even if old-name and/or new-name
 are numbers.
 Used as: ok patch 555 test patch-me to edit the definition of patch-me,
 replacing the command test with the literal value 555. Implementation note:
 When replacing a command with a number, an implementation might need to
 automatically create a named constant value for the replacement number.
 (The reason is that Forth commands often compile into a smaller memory
 space than literal numbers, so patching a number in place of an existing
 command is a problem.) A suggested name format is h#---, i.e., the
 number 555 (hex) would be named “h#555” . A name containing only digits
 (i.e., 555 constant 555) is not recommended, since changing base would
 cause incorrect evaluation of subsequent uses of that named value.

 (patch) ( new-n1 num1? old-n2 num2? xt -- ) Change contents of command
 indicated by xt.
 In the compiled definition of the command indicated by xt, change the
 first occurrence of old-n2 to new-n1. n1 and n2 can each be either an
 execution token or a literal number. The flag num1?, if true, indicates
 that new-n1 is a literal number. If false, it indicates that new-n1 is
 an execution token. The flag num2? is interpreted similarly.
 Used as: ['] new-name false 555 true ['] patch-me (patch) to edit the
 definition of patch-me, replacing the value 555 with the command
 new-name. See: patch for more information.
To be honest, I suspect the reason it's not been needed is that if we 
find any Forth bugs then it's easy enough just to update the binary 
image supplied with QEMU (i.e. we don't have to do updates to real 
hardware in the field).


ATB,

Mark.

[Tarl Neustaedter]

  You can also
use (patch) with the XT's if the words are not 
 externally visible.

 Steve
 I'm fairly sure that OpenBIOS don't implement either patch or (patch) 
 at the moment. If it's just a case of replacing one XT with another 
 within a word definition, then it shouldn't be too hard - or does it 
 do something more clever?
That's exactly what it does. If you look at the IEEE 1275 definition of 
"patch" and "(patch)", you see it has to do something a bit more 
carefully with numbers vs xt's - replacing "157" with "noop"
requires a 
bit of finesse...