Re: bye with exit status

On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 17:54:55 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <vgj268$2p1e5$1@dont-email.me>,
Anthony Howe  <achowe@snert.com> wrote:

On 2024-11-07 06:56, Ruvim wrote:

I would like to find a more appropriate name for this word than
"bye-status".

>
(bye) ( u -- )
>
Seems apropos, short, to the point and indicative of an internal word.
Default
can be defined to return to the host OS with an exit status `u`, but
maybe be
replaced in (unhosted) environments to perform some sort of system reset,
power
cycle, or other implementation defined system reset.

>
I agree that it is the politically correct definition.
However the question was, is it worth it to standardise.
The answer is of course: no.

If you are writing software that is to be maintained by other people
(and by yourself) in the future, it is best to give the routines
descriptive names. For example, FREE-ALLOCATED-OBJECTS or
DISCONNECT-NETWORK or SHUTDOWN-POWER-SUPPLIES. Furthermore, such
routines are different for every system, and in some desktop systems
they do not even exist. In my opinion, standardisation in this area
makes no sense at all.