From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   On 2024-08-05 18:33, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   > Ruvim  writes:   
   >> I meant the word `[IF]` by itself, without connection with `WANT`.   
   >   
   > Not necessarily a parsing word.  Could also be treated as something   
   > like another state (i.e., the text interpreter does the parsing, but   
   > does something different with the words than interpretation state or   
   > compile state.   
      
   > In every case, the interaction with other features is   
   > problematic; e.g., consider:   
   >   
   > 0 [IF]   
   > ...   
   > \ ....   
   > \ [ELSE]   
   > \ ....   
   > cr .( you should see this according to the standard)   
   > [THEN]   
   >   
   > (and the systems I tested actually comply with the standard requirements)   
   >   
   > This behaviour might surprise users, especially in connection with   
   > nested [IF]s.  However, there have been few complaints, so it   
   > obviously is only a minor issue.   
      
      
   This problem is not endemic to Forth. It takes place in many other   
   programming languages too.   
      
   For example, in "C++":   
      
      /*   
      
        // /* comment */ puts("you should see this");   
        // the above command takes effect despite the line comment   
      
      /* other comment */   
      
      
   A rule of thumb: the one who gains control first wins.   
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)