From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   On 2024-09-17 14:54, 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.   
      
      
   Or, a different question (because you could have another point of view):   
      
   Do you think that the Forth standard should recognize the classic   
   single-xt approach as *impossible* for implementing a standard Forth   
   system?  And consequently, it should be *impossible* for a standard   
   *program* to implement the standard `s"` word (from the File-Access word   
   set) as an immediate word, for example, as:   
      
      : s" ( "ccc" -- sd | )   
        [char] " parse   
        state @ if postpone sliteral exit then   
        dup >r allocate throw tuck r@ move r>   
      ; immediate   
      
   (I.e., you think that currently the above definition implements the   
   standard `s"` word, but it should not in a future version of the standard).   
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)