In article <2024Aug5.163310@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >Ruvim  writes:   
   >>On 2024-08-05 14:04, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>> Ruvim   wrote:   
   >>>> But if you hate parsing words in principle (just because they do   
   >>>> parsing), why not hate such long parsing words like `[if]`, `\`, the   
   >>>> construct "]]...[[", etc? What is an alternative for them?   
   >...   
   >>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:   
      
   If PREFIX-es are present, this can be handled by a wordlist that   
   contains [IF] [THEN] [ELSE] and a PREFIX with an empty name.   
   The empty prefix matches everything, and is defined as a noop.   
   (Also handy in lisp to generate symbols that prior didn't exist)   
   Manipulating this wordlist in the proper way, all parsing is   
   handled in INTERPRET.   
      
   >   
   >- anton   
   --   
   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)