From: krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org   
      
   On 6/26/24 23:14, Gerry Jackson wrote:   
   > On 26/06/2024 14:36, Ruvim wrote:   
   >> One possible use case:   
   >>   
   >>    : turnkey ( -- ) 0 set-order   
   >>      also Target definitions   
   >>      also Minimal also   
   >>    ;   
   >   
   > ALSO duplicates the wordlist at the head of the search order. If the   
   > search order is empty there is nothing to duplicate. Therefore ALSO   
   > applied to an empty search order ought to be an ambiguous condition.   
   >   
   > Presumably the above definition works because a target wordlist replaces   
   > whatever garbage ALSO leaves in the search order. So the definition   
   > might as well have 0 1 SET-ORDER instead of 0 SET-ORDER ALSO.   
   > Or better still TARGET-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER. Either removes the above   
   > justification for 0 SET-ORDER.   
   >   
      
   Good analysis showing that   
      
   1) The definition of TURNKEY is flawed.   
      
   2) 0 SET-ORDER is not necessary.   
      
      
   > But having said that it is better for 0 SET-ORDER to do what is natural   
   > instead of yet another ambiguous condition.   
   >   
   >  > Another possible use case:   
   >  >   
   >  >    : s-to-n ( addr u -- n )   
   >  >      depth >r   
   >  >      get-order n>r 0 set-order   
   >  >        ['] evaluate ['] execute-interpreting catch   
   >  >      nr> set-order   
   >  >      depth 1- r> <> if -12 throw then   
   >  >    ;   
   >   
   > This is a better use case e.g. if BASE is greater than decimal 10   
   > converting an alphanumeric string to a number could clash with a word in   
   > the dictionary. Having an empty search order eliminates that possibility.   
   >   
      
   This use case is convoluted and there may be a better of dealing with   
   the anticipated problem. If not, we should consider what's missing in   
   Forth allowing us to solve the problem more directly.   
      
      
   No one has pointed to a need for 0 SET-ORDER in interpretation state,   
   and there is no to undo its use in interpretation state in a standard.   
   Furthermore an empty search order contradicts the concept of a minimum   
   search order.   
      
   The solutions are:   
      
   1) leave everything as is, and live with the contradiction and the   
   hazard of performing 0 SET-ORDER in interpretation state.   
      
   2) make SET-ORDER state-smart, and live with the contradiction. This   
   will potentially break code.   
      
   3) disallow zero as an argument to SET-ORDER e.g. throw an error for zero.   
      
   Am I missing any other options?   
      
   Personally, I favor 3) -- throwing an error when zero is an argument to   
   SET-ORDER.   
      
   --   
   Krishna   
      
   Personally   
      
      
   2)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)