Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 2024-09-17 15:25, Anton Ertl wrote:

There is no standardized way to define words with arbitrary
combinations of interpretation and compilation semantics.  I don't
consider this to be a problem.  We would need such words only for
defining words like S", and we don't need additional words of this
kind.

`STATE` smart words are essentially composite words of behaviour when compiled and when interpreted.
a/ Outside of `INTERPRET` use of `NAME>COMPILE` and `NAME>INTERPRET`, what is the point of obtaining the `xt` of a interpreted word?  Isn't `INTERPRET` pretty implementation specific having intimate knowledge of the internals?
b/ If `STATE` smart words are problematic ( S" S\" ACTION-OF TO IS ), why not separate them into their composite parts which you can then obtain an `xt`?  (I know there is a painful dislike of adding new words that never existed before).
c/ Allow `STATE` smart words, but claim that trying to obtain the interpreting `xt` as non-portable behaviour (punt) and system/implementation specific.  OR the corollary...
c'/ Only allow obtaining the compile `xt` of `STATE` smart words as portable.
--
Anthony C Howe
achowe@snert.com                                   BarricadeMX & Milters
http://nanozen.snert.com/                          http://software.snert.com/