From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at   
      
   Krishna Myneni  writes:   
   >There's a reason why RECURSE (or equivalent) is preferable to having the   
   >name of the word in the output of SEE in Forth. This is because it is   
   >possible to have an earlier definition with the same name and to call it   
   >from within the definition e.g.   
   >   
   >: binom ... ;   
   >   
   >: binom ... binom ... ;   
      
   Yes, in Gforth SEE produces the same output for   
      
   : foo ;   
   : foo foo ;   
   see foo   
      
   and for   
      
   : foo recursive foo ;   
   see foo   
      
   Gforth's SEE also does not tell you that BAR is shadowed in the   
   following example:   
      
   : bar 1 . ;   
   : foo bar ;   
   : bar 2 . ;   
   see foo   
      
   Nor does Gforth's SEE tell you that a word it calls is in a wordlist   
   that is not in a search order.   
      
   Sometimes I think about giving some indication of such issues, but up   
   to now these ideas are pretty low on my todo list, because these   
   things cause little pain.   
      
   If you want to see the source code, use LOCATE (in the development   
   version).   
      
   - anton   
   --   
   M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html   
   comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html   
        New standard: https://forth-standard.org/   
      EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)