Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: minforth <minforth@gmx.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: 0 vs. translate-none
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 12:24:03 +0200
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <mj4pa3Fe7v3U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <2025Sep17.185305@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net +u56MPZWUmty22RJeXkgTAKYgn5OQdhmzSD/i0LxVpXrEupG28
Cancel-Lock: sha1:twsw4TKMVj/BWqFDLWzY/pjSsgo= sha256:2BxzKsaU5OaBCqUo7dbXq7SBYOvZaEZiaSyiKdXKsH8=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <2025Sep17.185305@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:134169

Am 17.09.2025 um 18:53 schrieb Anton Ertl:
 > This posting is a more general reflection about designing types in
 > Forth; it just uses recognizers as example.

My gut feeling is that the standard Forth word zoo is already big
enough. Why should one define return types now, after more than half
a century of Forth's history? This is beyond me.

However, if it's only for a text description of those recognizers,
I wouldn't mind.