Re: QUIT and ABORT

On 8/05/2025 3:52 am, Ruvim wrote:

...
I use `quit` only for testing and debugging. And I expect to get into the Forth text interpreter (Forth shell) exactly in the current program state (as far as possible).
 
If `quit` simply calls `-56 throw`, the program state will probably change (due to actions after `catch` in the program, including restoring the data stack depth in `throw`) when you get into the Forth shell. Also, there is a chance that you will not get into the Forth shell at all if the program does not re-throw the error in some places.
 
So I would not recommend the suggested deviation in the `quit` behavior even for new implementers, since this brakes the well-known expectation from `quit`. A better way is to introduce another word with desired behavior deviation.

ANS never gave a rationale for ABORT ABORT" QUIT - only options that we're now
exploring.

For the reasons you've stated I'm reluctant to define:

: QUIT -56 THROW ;

But are there reasons an application might were THROW able to handle it?  It's
arguable ANS left the door open.  Just because the spec for THROW didn't
special-case -56 doesn't mean an implementer can't.