From: achowe@snert.com   
      
   On 2024-09-17 06:54, Ruvim wrote:   
   > Do you think that the Forth standard should recognize the classic single-xt   
   > approach as possible for implementing a standard Forth system?   
   >   
   > The classic single-xt approach implies that only one execution token (xt) is   
   > associated with a name token (nt), and only one name token is associated   
   with a   
   > word (a named Forth definition). And words whose compilation semantics differ   
   > form default compilation semantics are implemented as immediate words.   
      
   Given I prefer single-xt (currently), what I don't get is how for a dual-xt   
   system you define a single word with two actions for interpret and compile. I   
   don't see a word to distinguish between the two, except maybe IMMEDIATE.   
      
   >   : s" ( "ccc" -- sd | )   
   >     [char] " parse   
   >     state @ if postpone sliteral exit then   
   >     dup >r allocate throw tuck r@ move r>   
   >   ; immediate   
      
   Do you define the same word twice, once for compile (immediate) and again for   
   interpret (order of definitions should not be important).  Example:   
      
   : s" ( "ccc" -- sd | ) postpone sliteral ; immediate   
   : s" ( "ccc" -- sd | ) dup >r allocate throw tuck r@ move r> ;   
      
      
   --   
   Anthony C Howe   
   achowe@snert.com                                   BarricadeMX & Milters   
   http://nanozen.snert.com/                          http://software.snert.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)