In article <2024Jun26.094910@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >Krishna Myneni  writes:   
   >>Why is 0 a valid argument to SET-ORDER (from the optional Search-Order   
   >>word set)? It can leave a Forth system in a non-recoverable state.   
   >   
   >So what?  There are lots of ways to put a Forth system in a   
   >non-recoverable state.   
   >   
   >>Sentences are separated for emphasis: "If n is zero, empty the search   
   >>order."  Why?   
   >   
   >Why not?  It's what I would expect from 0 SET-ORDER anyway.   
      
   0 SET-ORDER puts the minimum search order in place.   
   Then there  are  FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER present to get   
   the system under control. Am I mistaken?   
      
      
   >- anton   
      
   Groetjes Albert   
   --   
   Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.   
   You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the   
   hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in   
   the air. First gain is a cat purring.            - the Wise from Antrim -   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)