Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions

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

On 7/06/2025 7:06 am, sean@conman.org wrote:

...
A goal of my Forth system was to only have standard Forth words.

 
You trust the Standard.  Why? 

  Why not?  This was a learning experience for me, as this is my first
actual Forth implementation [1].  The ANS Forth 2012 standard gave me a
target to aim for.  Guess I shouldn't have bothered then.

The Standard dates backs to 1977 starting out as
a list of words pulled from Kitt Peak Forth.  If KPF didn't have (.) etc well
that was just too bad.  The point being nobody sat down and systematically
designed the standard (or forth) ground up.  It was adhoc.  It's always been
adhoc.  Moore has changed his mind numerous times.  What one sees in the Standard
is a snapshot of 1977.

  It seems to have concepts that have occured after 1977, or are you
speaking of some other Forth Standard, like 79 or 83?

Even small forths can do better than what the standard offers by simply factoring
out tools already present e.g.
 
(.)  (D.)  (U.)  /CHAR  >CHAR  >DIGIT  HELD  MU*  MU/MOD  TRIM  UNNEST
 
I'd rather have these than all the support for wordlists DEFER and other stuff
the standard and folks have obsessed over.

  Can you not implement them with ANS Forth?

  -spc