Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 2024-09-17 17:58, minforth wrote:

I hope that you are not trying to revive that dead old horse of
state-smartness.

Different people understand different things by "state-smartness".
For some people the word "evaluate" is state smart, for other — not.
So, it is unclear what do you mean.

There are already single-xt solutions to circumvent the poorly
designed specifications of ' and POSTPONE e.g. use different
wordlists for interpretation and compilation.

Do you mean https://github.com/uho/interpretive ?
This solution implies that two nt are associated with some words (what violates my initial point).
This solution implies a single word list for all unordinary words. It is not suitable for programs that use many word lists.

the poorly designed specifications of ' and POSTPONE

POSTPONE is perfectly specified. What you dislike with it?
--
Ruvim