Re: Semantics as observable behavior

On 2024-09-23 02:01, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-09-23 01:04, Anton Ertl wrote:

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

On 2024-09-22 21:13, Anton Ertl wrote:

>
: bar state @ ; immediate
>

[...]

The interpretation semantics of BAR are to push the contents of STATE
on the data stack.

>
I think, we should use the black box model — specify what can be
observed. And according to what can be observed, the interpretation
semantics of this word are to push zero on the data stack.

>
No.
>
: [execute] execute ; immediate
s" bar" find-name name>interpret ] [execute] [ . \ prints -1

 Could you please formulate: how to programmatically perform the behavior that can be observed when the Forth text interpreter encounters the name of your word "bar" in interpretation state?
 And how to do it in the general case (for any defined word)?

I also want to address these questions to everyone.
Can you suggest one ore more standard-compliant ways to exhibit the same behavior that is observed when the Forth text interpreter encounters the name of the word "bar" (defined above) in interpretation state?
You may provide quotations (or anonymous definitions), execution of which exhibits that behavior.
And also, if you can, suggest such ways for any word "foo", regardless how it is defined.
--
Ruvim