Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 6/26/24 04:18, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

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?
 

According to Anton's interpretation you are mistaken.
0 SET-ORDER empties the search order, which is commonly taken to be understood as nothing exists in the search order. Of course this contradicts the notion in the standard of a "minimum search order which contains the words FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER".
--
Krishna