From: krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org   
      
   On 6/29/24 21:21, dxf wrote:   
   > On 30/06/2024 12:17 am, Krishna Myneni wrote:   
   >> On 6/28/24 10:50, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   >>> Krishna Myneni  writes:   
   >>>> On 6/26/24 02:49, 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.   
   >>>>> ...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> By design? No.   
   >>>   
   >>> Does it matter?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Yes, it matters. Not everyone uses Forth to develop and use turnkey   
   applications. Some of us rely on the Forth environment itself as the   
   application interface, where definitions in a precise search order *are* the   
   interface. Inadvertently emptying the    
   search order and violating the notion of a minimum search order would mean   
   loss of data from a lengthy computation or data acquisition.   
   >   
   > Under what circumstances is 0 SET-ORDER executed inadvertently?   
   >   
      
   One example: assume you have a value containing the number of wordlists   
      
   0 value Nwid   
      
   and it is not properly set. Then doing,   
      
   wid1 wid2 ... widn Nwid SET-ORDER   
      
   --   
   KM   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)