From: achowe@snert.com   
      
   On 2024-09-17 15:25, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   > There is no standardized way to define words with arbitrary   
   > combinations of interpretation and compilation semantics.  I don't   
   > consider this to be a problem.  We would need such words only for   
   > defining words like S", and we don't need additional words of this   
   > kind.   
      
   `STATE` smart words are essentially composite words of behaviour when compiled   
   and when interpreted.   
      
   a/ Outside of `INTERPRET` use of `NAME>COMPILE` and `NAME>INTERPRET`, what is   
   the point of obtaining the `xt` of a interpreted word?  Isn't `INTERPRET`   
   pretty   
   implementation specific having intimate knowledge of the internals?   
      
   b/ If `STATE` smart words are problematic ( S" S\" ACTION-OF TO IS ), why not   
   separate them into their composite parts which you can then obtain an `xt`?  (I   
   know there is a painful dislike of adding new words that never existed before).   
      
   c/ Allow `STATE` smart words, but claim that trying to obtain the interpreting   
   `xt` as non-portable behaviour (punt) and system/implementation specific.  OR   
   the corollary...   
      
   c'/ Only allow obtaining the compile `xt` of `STATE` smart words as portable.   
      
      
   --   
   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)