Herein, macros seem to be invented from first principles, having only been exposed to imperative languages like C++. It is interesting to see macros here invented in the context of a language that is not homoiconic. I wonder how it stacks up against Rust macros.
Definition of 'if' statement: https://github.com/c3d/xl/blob/fast/src/builtins.xl#L155
// If-then-else statement
if [[true]] then True else False is True
if [[false]] then True else False is False
if [[true]] then True is True
if [[false]] then True is false
// Loops
while Condition loop Body is
if Condition then
Body
while Condition loop Body
until Condition loop Body is { while not Condition loop Body }
loop Body is { Body; loop Body }
for Var in Low..High loop Body is
Var := Low
while Var < High loop
Body
Var := Var + 1Postscript would count as homoiconic, I’d think. Though I haven’t actually seen programs that so this.
Compiled Forths might opt to wall off some of those options behind the compiler interface, in effect making the language slightly less far-reaching.
It is trivial to collect those Xts as data and execute them later.
CREATE XT-LIST ] THESE WORDS COULD BE FORTH CODE [
XT-LIST now contains six XTs. They can now be read one XT at a time and executed.
So if one accepts that those XTs are data, BUT they are also code since they can be "executed" by the Forth VM then I think we can say Forth is homoiconic.
However if that doesn't suffice it is perfectly legal to pass text strings to EVALUATE.
: TEST S" THESE WORDS COULD BE FORTH CODE" EVALUATE ;
That's all I got.
I’m going to have to do more Forth. And I have a sudden urge to go write some silly self-modifying assembly, if current processors even allow that anymore.