Re: QUIT and ABORT

On 10/05/2025 5:18 am, Ruvim wrote:

On 2025-05-09 12:20, dxf wrote:

On 9/05/2025 4:20 pm, Ruvim wrote:

...
I wonder what you meant by "ANS made EXCEPTION EXT a one-way street".

 
ANS doesn't require ABORT ABORT" be catchable if CATCH THROW is implemented.
EXCEPTION EXT contradicts that entitlement and once implemented the effect
can't readily be undone.

but if you're going to enforce a catchable ABORT and
ABORT" then why omit QUIT - and if you do - why is it in table?

 
I think, `QUIT` is in the table by a mistake.
 
Regarding `ABORT` and `ABORT"` (and many other in Forth-2012) — they should not go into this table since this table formally reserves throw codes for *ambiguous conditions* only.

Easier to remove the word "ambiguous".  It's a convenience that all the
reserved codes should be listed in one table.

We can keep going round in circles but ISTM what's needed is a rationale.
Because I'm not seeing one in ANS.  Folks have implemented what it said
but can't explain it.  Hence the Bible allusion.
>

 
Perhaps you could write the rationale?

Not as things stand.  There are contradictions words can't bend.  OTOH
one might change the Standard to reflect common practice - often used
as a rationale in itself.  It would mean removing some entitlements ANS
gave but if nobody cares about them...