Re: Alternative for long parsing words

On 2024-08-05 18:33, Anton Ertl wrote:

Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> writes:

I meant the word `[IF]` by itself, without connection with `WANT`.

 Not necessarily a parsing word.  Could also be treated as something
like another state (i.e., the text interpreter does the parsing, but
does something different with the words than interpretation state or
compile state.

In every case, the interaction with other features is
problematic; e.g., consider:
 0 [IF]
...
\ ....
\ [ELSE]
\ ....
cr .( you should see this according to the standard)
[THEN]
 (and the systems I tested actually comply with the standard requirements)
 This behaviour might surprise users, especially in connection with
nested [IF]s.  However, there have been few complaints, so it
obviously is only a minor issue.

This problem is not endemic to Forth. It takes place in many other programming languages too.
For example, in "C++":
   /*
     // /* comment */ puts("you should see this");
     // the above command takes effect despite the line comment
   /* other comment */
A rule of thumb: the one who gains control first wins.
--
Ruvim