Re: Nested definitions

On 2025-07-03 21:42, peter wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 20:47:07 +0400
Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, something like "private[ ... ]private" is a possible approach,
and its implementation seems simpler than adding the smarts to `:`
and `;` (and other defining words, if any).
>
The advantage of this approach over "<: ... ;>" is that you can
define not only colon-definitions, but also constants, variables,
immediate words, one-time macros, etc.
>
>
    : foo ( F: r.coefficient -- r.result )
      private[
        variable cnt
        0e fvalue k
        : [x] ... ; immediate
      ]private
      to k   0 cnt !
      ...
    ;
>
It's also possible to associated the word list of private words with
the containing word xt for debugging purposes.
>
>

 In lxf I have module, private, public, end-module
your example would be
 module
private
 variable cnt
0e fvalue k
: [x] ... ; immediate
 public
 : foo ( F: r.coefficient -- r.result )
      to k   0 cnt !
      ...
;
 end-module

I usually take this approach too.
But in some cases it seems too wordy or long.
Usage of construct  "<: ... ;>"

 end-module will remove all headers from the private words in the module

I am not found of mixing definitions inside others.

By the way, local variables slightly break this principle. Also, conceptually, a module definition contains definitions of other words and possibly nested modules. And, conceptually, there is nothing wrong with defining a module as a colon-definition.
--
Ruvim