Sujet : Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions
De : no.email (at) *nospam* nospam.invalid (Paul Rubin)
Groupes : comp.lang.forthDate : 07. Jun 2025, 20:58:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <87plff4938.fsf@nightsong.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
dxf <
dxforth@gmail.com> writes:
For (.) (D.) (U.) that's certainly not the case in Gforth.
I said the Standard hadn't factored them out. Several forths of course
have factored them out.
Well I think you were saying the standard SHOULD have factored them out,
presumably because they are both useful to users, and reasonably
necessary parts of the underlying implementation that could have been
exported, as opposed to just giving more clutter for implementers to
supply.
So now I have to also wonder what they do and what they are good for.
As for /CHAR >CHAR >DIGIT HELD MU* MU/MOD TRIM UNNEST
Same for these. I can sort of guess at a few.