Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

In article <2024Jun26.094910@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:

Why is 0 a valid argument to SET-ORDER (from the optional Search-Order
word set)? It can leave a Forth system in a non-recoverable state.

>
So what?  There are lots of ways to put a Forth system in a
non-recoverable state.
>

Sentences are separated for emphasis: "If n is zero, empty the search
order."  Why?

>
Why not?  It's what I would expect from 0 SET-ORDER anyway.

0 SET-ORDER puts the minimum search order in place.
Then there  are  FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER present to get
the system under control. Am I mistaken?

<SNIP>

- anton

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -