Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: does VFX have the same bug as Gforth? Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 07:36:00 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <2014Aug19.111459@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Aug19.173925@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Aug20.094606@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Aug22.171358@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2014Aug25.102650@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.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:33070 On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:26:50 -0400, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" writes: >> If "people using [COMPILE] will assume EXIT to be non-immediate" and >> "all [compile] does is to undo the immediate flag" (BP in a later post), >> why would anyone ever use [COMPILE] on an assumed, non-immediate EXIT ? >> There would be absolutely no point in doing that, right? > > Yes, one normally won't use [COMPILE] on words with default > compilation semantics like EXIT (immediacy and user expectations have > little to do with it, though). The standard still specifies what > happens when you do it, so a standard system has to implement it. > If EXIT has to be added to [COMPILE] to fix it with VFX, why doesn't R> >R R@ LEAVE UNLOOP I J need to be added too? Rod Pemberton