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: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:42:12 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 18 Message-ID: <87mvmno63f.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> <874m8wpv2l.fsf@nightsong.com> <10c7ee49-ba91-41f9-93ce-e860c6ab3cf8@googlegroups.com> <87ziqoodvp.fsf@nightsong.com> <8a368ba5-a227-40f6-afa4-5434d52694e9@googlegroups.com> <87r3bzo8vo.fsf@nightsong.com> <7723d6a9-ef5f-47e6-9407-61a76990de74@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a4ba9f006d4fba7a97cec7431fc63985"; logging-data="29616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SlsCZPtIZ3z4Nqw9MNLOU" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:u9xrUM0ewAnbOJ9cFzhfCjSpiac= sha1:7xoVBoZEplJy+TuKNHr6p+tUboo= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:48159 krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org writes: > The general problem is with Forth compilers doing things that are > unasked for by the programmer The whole idea of a compiler is to save the programmer effort by doing stuff automatically instead of making the programmer ask explicitly. So of course the compiler does stuff the programmer doesn't ask for--that's its job. A language translator that does only what the programmer asks is called an assembler. The programmer's valid expectations of the compiler are the ones documented in the language standard. If the standard doesn't specify some particular behaviour, then the programmer shouldn't expect a generic implementation to do it. In this case it sounds like there's a disconnect between the ANS standard and undocumented expectations formed from using older systems like Forth-83. I can't speak for users of those old systems since I never used them myself. But it never would have occurred to me that what the OP posted could reasonably be expected to work.