Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?

In article <v5p4ir$3utd9$1@dont-email.me>,
Krishna Myneni  <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:

On 6/28/24 03:04, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <v5kde0$2sasd$1@dont-email.me>,
Krishna Myneni  <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:

...
The whole Search Order word set is clunky and has a cobbled together
feel about it. It is also difficult to integrate a named modules system
into which provides Public/Private definitions into the standard words
e.g. making ORDER list the names of the modules isn't easy.
>
A stack model for the search order may be the way to go. It would be
more intuitive to Forth users than having to remember ONLY ALSO PREVIOUS
etc.
>
Currently the standard defines what a minimum search order should
contain but then promptly disregards it by standardizing 0 SET-ORDER.
This is dangerous in interpretation mode, and, while it may have uses in
compilation mode, within a definition where the prior search order can
be restored (or not), the notion of a well-defined minimum search order
should be a strong guarantee to the Forth programmer and not allowed to
be violated easily.

I have taken the liberty to replace VOCABULARY with NAMESPACE in ciforth.
NAMESPACE is a named wordlist that pushes itself to the search order.
If you formulate it an archaic way, "ALSO is put in the body of the
CREATE DOES> word NAMESPACE."
In fact in this approach, `ALSO is all but superfluous.
It is from the time, one had merely two slots for wordlists.
Wordlist's , namespaces that have itself no name, are so akward.

--
Krishna

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -