Re: single-xt approach in the standard

Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> writes:

On 2024-09-23 12:36, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
I also wanted to say that there is an opinion that this definition does
not implement `s"` specified in 11.6.1.2165. An interesting question for
those who share this opinion: how can 11.6.1.2165 be changed (if at all)
to allow this implementation?

The implementation is not in your posting, but I guess you mean a
STATE-smart implementation.  One way to allow a STATE-smart
implementation of S" would be to state something like the following in
the "Interpretation:" section of the glossary entry of 11.6.1.2165:

An ambiguous condition exists if the interpretation semantics of S" is
performed in other than interpration state.

Likewise, add the following to the "Compilation:" section:

An ambiguous condition exists if the compilation semantics of S" is
performed in other than compilation state.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
   EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net