Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: ciforth model Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 13:22:05 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 14 Message-ID: <87bjf64wpe.fsf@nightsong.com> References: <2026Apr17.092944@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <87se8k45t1.fsf@nightsong.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 20:22:06 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="429eeaaa903ae316679c4fb1ba1fdcd3"; logging-data="1160052"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xAiqVZvodCf0VXGujFzg7" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:kBDcaKJ3K8/cL9V70TR8Tlwf1dI= sha1:dB8nAB9H7Y7cwviFVBteWhnKXqU= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:134973 albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes: > If you have a conflict, you rename the new offending definition, > as you do now. How do you know when there is a conflict? We're talking about a hash collision, right? Are we supposed to guarantee that the hash function won't change between interpreter versions and that sort of thing? "As you do now": well, no; I've never used a Forth that faced this issue. All the ones I've used have stored the entire name instead of hashing. I thought (or at least hoped) that the different lossy compression schemes from the early days were historical artifacts due to the very small machines of the era. By the time of the Commodore 64, those tricks were not needed.