Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

On 6/27/24 17:08, Gerry Jackson wrote:

On 27/06/2024 20:22, Krishna Myneni wrote:

...

The solutions are:
>
1) leave everything as is, and live with the contradiction and the hazard of performing 0 SET-ORDER in interpretation state.

 I favour  this, there are other ways of achieving the effect of
0 SET-ORDER in interpretation mode, for example
 1) WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER
 2)  Using PREVIOUS on a search order of FORTH-WORDLIST only (assuming FORTH-WORDLIST contains PREVIOUS)
 3) ...
 I suspect trying to ban every possibility isn't worth it
 

Since SET-ORDER is a standardized word and changing its behavior would break existing code, it's not the right approach anyway. The options 2--3 are really for suggesting another word which has the behavior of SET-ORDER except for the zero arg case.
--
Krishna