Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Is it sill FORTH ? Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:45:06 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 7 Message-ID: <874m8wpv2l.fsf@nightsong.com> References: <0c6bffa3-2fc9-4dfb-876a-cc6319545406@googlegroups.com> <867bd587-389a-40de-8bc4-f3af2a3b248d@googlegroups.com> <17873d92-657f-494a-8c0f-6bd2ad5d212a@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a4ba9f006d4fba7a97cec7431fc63985"; logging-data="31416"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/G2PYcgL/esCoHFaLIdFSA" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:RrVo8uqoJJQiWDakoMs1DpCLfL4= sha1:OCiNLv4s8S7EDqJSzQPUn3bN2bs= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:48090 krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org writes: > To be clear, I meant Gforth's behavior could lead to portability > problems, not the OP's example. I don't think it's reasonable to expect OP's example to be portable. What if it's a native code compiler? In fact even in the most obvious types of interpreters it's hard to understand why it should work.