Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions

On 5/06/2025 5:25 am, sean@conman.org wrote:

It was thus said that the Great dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> once stated:

>
Perhaps the TC went along with Mitch.  CATCH THROW was his idea and
here's a bunch of codes to go with it.  The extent to which a tiny forth
is going to use ANS is dubious. 

 
  What constitutes a "tiny Forth"?

In the context of the conversation tiny enough to question the inclusion of
error messages.  An example might be Fig-Forth which used numbers for errors
but if mass storage was available displayed the associated string.  Albert's
Fig-Forth for CP/M was 7K.

Because I just implemented ANS Forth [1]
for the 6809 [2], and I included CATCH and THROW.  It's almost 12K in size
and for the wordsets it implements, it passes the ANS Forth test suite.  I
implemented the EXCEPTION wordset because it seems a 2017 update mandated
it's use.  While I'm not a fan of exceptions, it wasn't hard to implement
and it seemed better thought out than SYNONYM [4].
 
  -spc
 
[1] I implemented CORE, CORE-EXT, DOUBLE, DOUBLE-EXT, EXCEPTION,
EXCEPTION-EXT, LOCAL, LOCAL-EXT, TOOLS, some of TOOLS-EXT [3],
SEARCH, SEARCH-EXT, STRING and STRING-EXT.
 
[2] https://github.com/spc476/ANS-Forth
 
[3] Words implemented from TOOLS-EXT: AHEAD, BYE, CS-PICK, CS_ROLL, N>R,
NAME>COMPILE, NAME>INTERPRET, NAME>STRING, NR>, STATE,
TRAVERSE-WORDLIST, [DEFINED], [ELSE], [IF], [THEN], [UNDEFINED].
>
[4] When reading about it [5], I decided I didn't want anything to do
with that quagmire of a word.
 
[5] https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/SYNONYM

Sounds like you're beginning to question the Standard :)  Once I did, I was
able to remove things I never used, freeing up space for things no standard
will ever include.