Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: ? operator in Forth Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 01:30:09 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1f86d832-a0bd-4d35-9587-0b81afe11035@googlegroups.com> <4121ada4-218e-4d14-9527-3a3d9bee5185@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:41945 On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:58:44 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > The second is better, but still depends on the assumption that you have > an ITC system and can comma down an xt and it will be executable. In > some systems, the compiler would generate a jsr at that point, for > example, even if you turn off the optimizer. For an ITC system, is there a way to simulate the *inability* to "comma down an xt" of non-ITC systems? What about other historical ITC behaviors people commonly expect? I.e., if I need my ITC system to be free from common assumptions about abilities of Forth words which are *not* standardized for ANS Forth, what words do I redefine and how? Rod Pemberton -- Just how many texting and calendar apps does humanity need?