Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 26/06/2024 11:36 pm, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-06-26 12:50, dxf wrote:

...
So after all that you don't have an explanation either?  You implemented
it as instructed in the event someone finds a use.

 
 
I think, in this case it's better to specify behavior than to declare an ambiguous condition.

No need to specify useless behaviours.  u=0 in REPRESENT wasn't specified as
the TC couldn't imagine a use for it.  Which was just as well as there was
a use for it the TC apparently overlooked.

Then the empty search order is the expected result by *induction*. It would be strange to specify any other behavior in this case.
 
One possible use case:
 
  : turnkey ( -- ) 0 set-order
    also Target definitions
    also Minimal also
  ;
 
It's found in
<https://github.com/eswartz/emul/blob/master/v9t9/v9t9-c/tools/Forth/site-forth/cross.fs>
...

That seems useful.