Re: Why dial-a-standard is not a thing in Forth

On 2/05/2025 6:55 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:

On 01-05-2025 03:23, dxf wrote:

On 30/04/2025 11:58 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:

On 30-04-2025 04:37, dxf wrote:

On 30/04/2025 2:50 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:

...
To force myself to add messages to THROWs (especially in libs with special conditions) I added THROW" - it works like a combination of ABORT" and THROW. You need to specify a THROW code, you need to specify a flag and you need to specify a message.

>
What happens in the case of CATCH - what's left on the stack?
>

Surprise, surprise - THROW" calls THROW (actually, it inlines the whole shebang). So - what do you think?

>
For ABORT" the string is suppressed and only the code (-2) is left.
Is that what THROW" does with the string?
>
AFAIK on most forth systems exceptions generate either an error code or an
error message (the latter via ABORT" or caught code).  In short, what good
is having both a msg and a code?
>

 
In 4tH, ABORT is really abort. It does what the label says. It can't be caught. If you want to abort, I assume you want to abort. If you wanna catch it, use THROW. C'mon. I designed it as a man's language ;-)

Well you did say 'THROW" calls THROW' and since the code # is unlikely to be
that of ABORT what is a self-respecting forther going to assume? :)

I had a look at DX-Forth to see what it would take to print both string and
code number.  While it can be done I'm not sure the extra code is warranted.
The other factor is I never implemented ANS codes -3 onwards.  If apps use
THROW at all they're generally caught.  Otherwise everything is ABORT or
ABORT" .  I do have ?ABORT ( n adr len -- ) which works the same way as the
FI's.  I don't think I've used it as yet.