Sujet : Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
De : krishna.myneni (at) *nospam* ccreweb.org (Krishna Myneni)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 30. Jun 2024, 19:31:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5s8a8$ksnb$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/30/24 12:38, minforth wrote:
FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER should bring you "back to life".
IOW the question is whether FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER
should be findable even when the search-order is empty.
Probably classified as "implementation-defined option".
The minimum search order contains FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER per the standard. The question is whether or not the standard should actually guarantee that this is always true.
It seems nonsensical to say there are zero wordlists in the search order, but FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER are still findable.
-- KM
0 SET-ORDER why?
Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
