Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!news.gnuher.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!feed.news.schlund.de!schlund.de!news.online.de!not-for-mail From: Bernd Paysan Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: does VFX have the same bug as Gforth? Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:06:08 +0200 Organization: 1&1 Internet AG Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <7f2a965b-6053-44c4-ac8c-5c977f197de8@googlegroups.com> <2014Aug19.111459@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Aug19.173925@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: p5dcd7485.dip0.t-ipconnect.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: online.de 1408568767 16062 93.205.116.133 (20 Aug 2014 21:06:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@einsundeins.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:06:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.11.5 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:32983 Alex McDonald wrote: >> That way it is clearly extending the current COMPILE, in a way that >> now xts can carry non-default compilation semantics - and it's >> non-ambiguous by itself (i.e. still well-defined). And of course we >> need to say that the system has to document which words with special >> compilation semantics are actually implemented that way. >> > > Or we could abandon COMPILE, and provide POSTPONE, That means you have to change code that uses Mitch Bradley's generic compiler - if you invent new words for functions which already exist, and are already used that way, you break code. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/