Re: Juggling system-compilation items

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 14:05:47 +0000, Ruvim wrote:

Do you know a Forth system in which the following definition for "const"
is compiled but does not work as expected?
>
>
: const ( x "<spaces>name" -- )
   depth >r          ( x )                   ( R: n.depth )
   :                 ( x colon-sys )         ( R: n.depth )
   depth r> -        ( x colon-sys n.size )  ( R: )
   n>r               ( x )                   ( R: i*x n.size )
   postpone literal  (   )                   ( R: i*x n.size )
   nr>               ( colon-sys n.size )    ( R: )
   drop              ( colon-sys )
   postpone ;        (   )
;
>
>
t{ 123 const foo -> }t
t{ foo -> 3 }t
>
>
Note 3.1.5.1 System-compilation types
<https://forth-standard.org/standard/usage#subsubsection.3.1.5.1>
>
>
--
Ruvim

Yes if fails on both my systems lxf and lxf64!
the reason if fails is that : stores the current depth and ; later
compares it with the actual
at that point. This is to catch unmatched loops and conditionals.
The usual use of >r r> works as intended
: const >r : r> postpone literal postpone ; ;
I think !csp and ?csp are common also in other systems. I certainly did
not invent them.
BR
Peter