Re: Nested definitions

On 2025-07-02 13:02, minforth wrote:

Am 02.07.2025 um 10:53 schrieb Ruvim:

On 2025-06-24 01:03, minforth wrote:
[...]
>

For me, the small syntax extension is a convenience when working
with longer definitions. A bit contrived (:= synonym for TO):
>
: SOME-APP { a f: b c | temp == n: flag z: freq }
\ inputs: integer a, floats b c
\ uninitialized: float temp
\ outputs: integer flag, complex freq
  <: FUNC < ... calc function ... > ;>

>
BTW, why do you prefer the special syntax `<: ... ;>`
over an extension to the existing words `:` and `;`
>
   : SOME-APP
      [ : FUNC < ... calc function ... > ; ]
      < ... >
   ;
>
In this approach the word `:` knows that it's a nested definition and behaves accordingly.

Are you sure? gforth test:
 : APP 1 [ : func 2 ; ] func ;  ok
app
*the terminal*:2:1: error: Invalid memory address

This is not standard, just like `<: ;>`
My question is why did you introduce `<:` and `;>` instead of extending the `:` and `;` behavior?
Something like this:
   : ( "name" -- colon-sys )
     germ ( xt|0 ) \ the current definition xt or 0
     0= if  0  :  exit then
     get-current locals-wodlist set-current  :
   ;
   : :noname ( -- xt colon-sys )
     ['] :noname execute-balance 1- n>r 0 nr>
   ;
   : ; ( colon-sys -- )
     postpone ;  ( wid|0 )
     ?dup if set-current then
   ;
--
Ruvim