Re: nest-sys revisited

On 14/03/2025 11:46 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <8d760e814c0d0342eb9beaa0d271a6f1d1271e3a@i2pn2.org>,
dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14/03/2025 3:19 am, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

Apologize, for bad mouthing nested-sys in the coroutine discussion.
(not that I like this concept).
>
In the ISO 94 document the concept of nest-sys is indeed needed.
...

>
Unavoidable really.  Nesting aka subroutine call - the process of
calling a function and when it completes, returning to the caller -
is a basic computing concept.  In forth 'nest-sys' represents the
information necessary to facilitate that return.  It should not be
confused with invoking a function i.e. 'xt' EXECUTE.

 
I've shown that the concept of nest-sys is avoidable for a language
that has the capabilities of Forth with a slight reorganisation of
the CREATE DOES> construction.
 
nest-sys is a ghost. You know it must be there, but only an
implementor has to deal with it. Unless you stick to CREATE DOES>,
you call this unavoidable, I don't.

For whom is nest-sys a problem?  Not Standard users.  I've used
CREATE DOES> and don't recall thinking about nest-sys once.  Same
goes for : and ;  It only becomes an issue if a user does something
not covered by the Standard e.g.  R> DROP  to discard a nest-sys.