From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   On 2024-08-11 12:38, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article , Ruvim     
   wrote:   
   >> On 2024-08-10 12:57, PMF wrote:   
   >>> I think !csp and ?csp are common also in other systems. I certainly did   
   >>> not invent them.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, it's a simple method to check the control-flow structures balance   
   >> from the FIG-Forth model.   
   >>   
   >> I would suggest avoiding this method in Forth implementations.   
   >   
   > It saved me a lot of mistakes. ciforth reports an error.   
   > If you care to look the error up in the documentation, you can see   
   > that you can turn this off, if you want to.   
      
      
   I don't mean removing this check. I mean using another implementation.   
      
   This check is easy to implement without being tied to stack depth.   
   For example:   
      
        -1023 here + constant colon-magic   
      
        : :noname ( -- xt colon-sys )   
          :noname  colon-magic   
        ;   
      
        : : ( "name" -- colon-sys )   
          :   colon-magic   
        ;   
      
        : ; ( colon-sys -- )   
          colon-magic <>  -22 and throw   
          postpone ;   
        [ drop ] \ due to new `:` and old `;`   
        ; immediate   
      
        : does> ( colon-sys -- colon-sys )   
          colon-magic <>  -22 and throw   
          postpone does>  colon-magic   
        ; immediate   
      
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)