Re: Operator overloading?

Gerry Jackson <do-not-use@swldwa.uk> writes:

On 31/07/2024 08:47, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <v8b04c$137lg$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Pelc  <stephen@vfxforth.com> wrote:

Here's a program that demonstrates a non-parsing TO:
>
 VFX Forth 64 for Windows x64
  © MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd, 1998-2023
>
 Version: 5.43 [build 4238]
 Build date: 9 November 2023
>
 Free dictionary = 6731782 bytes [6574kb]
>
111 value x x . 111  ok
222 to cr .( Does TO parse? ) x x 222 = [if] .( No it doesn't!) [then]
Does TO parse? No it doesn't! ok
>
Using a flag means that x could be on another line or even in another file.
>
You could argue that it's not a standard program because it contains a
deliberate ambiguous condition

Exactly, it's not a standard program, and no particular behaviour is
specified in the standard for this program.

so a parsing TO would fail in some way
but it does demonstrate non-compliant behaviour.

Given that it's not a standard program and no particular behaviour is
prescribed, the behaviour of VFX is compliant for this program.

There may be some way to construct a compliant program using FIND,
SEARCH-WORDLIST, TRAVERSE-WORDLIST, or FIND-NAME, where VFX does not
behave compliantly, though.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
   EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net