Thread Closed 
history of the 4-level stack
09-11-2014, 02:39 AM
Post: #23
RE: history of the 4-level stack
(09-10-2014 12:45 AM)Jeff_Kearns Wrote:  I probably would have used postfix on store if we had more than 10 storage cells (0-9), but "STO N" seemed much more easily understood than "N STO".

It would seem that in a four-level stack, prefix notation (STO 1) does have one extremely important advantage over postfix (1 STO): the former preserves all four stack values (since the register number is never placed on the stack), while the latter would destroy the value in the T register (since the stack would lift when the register number was keyed in).

John
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 


Messages In This Thread
history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-05-2014, 09:11 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - d b - 09-11-2014, 07:21 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-06-2014, 05:15 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - jebem - 09-06-2014, 07:33 AM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-06-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-06-2014, 06:06 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-07-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-07-2014, 10:04 AM
OT: deep stack issues - axd1967 - 09-07-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-07-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - John R - 09-11-2014, 02:31 AM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - John R - 09-11-2014 02:39 AM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-11-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - John R - 09-11-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-10-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: history of the 4-level stack - axd1967 - 09-11-2014, 05:13 PM



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)