Sujet : Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
De : krishna.myneni (at) *nospam* ccreweb.org (Krishna Myneni)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 30. Jun 2024, 17:10:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5s019$jbd6$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/29/24 21:21, dxf wrote:
On 30/06/2024 12:17 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:
On 6/28/24 10:50, Anton Ertl wrote:
Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:
On 6/26/24 02:49, Anton Ertl 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.
...
>
By design? No.
>
Does it matter?
>
>
Yes, it matters. Not everyone uses Forth to develop and use turnkey applications. Some of us rely on the Forth environment itself as the application interface, where definitions in a precise search order *are* the interface. Inadvertently emptying the search order and violating the notion of a minimum search order would mean loss of data from a lengthy computation or data acquisition.
Under what circumstances is 0 SET-ORDER executed inadvertently?
One example: assume you have a value containing the number of wordlists
0 value Nwid
and it is not properly set. Then doing,
wid1 wid2 ... widn Nwid SET-ORDER
-- KM
0 SET-ORDER why?
Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
