Re: QUIT and ABORT

On 2025-05-09 23:18, Ruvim wrote:

On 2025-05-09 12:20, dxf wrote:

On 9/05/2025 4:20 pm, Ruvim wrote:

On 2025-05-09 04:54, dxf wrote:

On 8/05/2025 10:50 pm, Ruvim wrote:

On 2025-05-08 06:52, dxf wrote:

On 8/05/2025 3:52 am, Ruvim wrote:

...
I use `quit` only for testing and debugging. And I expect to get into the Forth text interpreter (Forth shell) exactly in the current program state (as far as possible).
>
If `quit` simply calls `-56 throw`, the program state will probably change (due to actions after `catch` in the program, including restoring the data stack depth in `throw`) when you get into the Forth shell. Also, there is a chance that you will not get into the Forth shell at all if the program does not re-throw the error in some places.
>
So I would not recommend the suggested deviation in the `quit` behavior even for new implementers, since this brakes the well- known expectation from `quit`. A better way is to introduce another word with desired behavior deviation.

>
ANS never gave a rationale for ABORT ABORT" QUIT - only
options that we're now exploring.
>
For the reasons you've stated I'm reluctant to define:
>
: QUIT -56 THROW ;
>
But are there reasons an application might were THROW able
to handle it?

>
I don't see such a reason. The application can simply do
`abort` or `-56 throw` (and no special cases are needed).

>
Yes but those would be workarounds.  It's making the argument
QUIT can't or shouldn't be caught whereas I'm talking about
entitlement.

[...]

but if you're going to enforce a catchable ABORT and
ABORT" then why omit QUIT

One more argument. If `QUIT` is catchable like `ABORT` then it:
- either behaves the same as `ABORT` (empties or restores the data stack depth);
- or does not predict the data stack at all when it starts the Forth text interpreter (because the data stack depth will be set according to the earliest/deepest user exception frame).
Both cases are worse than the standardized behavior.

- and if you do - why is it in table?

 I think, `QUIT` is in the table by a mistake.

--
Ruvim