From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 14/10/2024 3:24 pm, Ruvim wrote:   
   > On 2024-10-13 09:27, dxf wrote:   
   >> On 13/10/2024 3:10 pm, Ruvim wrote:   
   >>> On 2024-10-13 06:59, dxf wrote:   
   >>>> On 13/10/2024 1:20 pm, Ruvim wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2024-10-13 05:13, dxf wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 13/10/2024 12:54 am, Ruvim wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2024-10-12 05:45, dxf wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> The basics:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> : .BAD ( -- )  cr ." Invalid item"  .abort ;   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> : ZE? ( x -- )  if .bad then ;     \ abort if non-zero   
   >>>>>>>> : NZ? ( x -- )  0= ze? ;           \ abort if zero   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Typically, if word name ends with a question mark, the first (top)   
   >>>>>>> output parameter of the word is a *flag*. And it's true for all   
   >>>>>>> standard words. (though, opposite is not true)   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It's rather similar.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ZE? NZ?  destructively tests TOS   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But these words do not return a flag in the first output parameter.   
   >>>>> So, their names violate the common convention.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Conventions are a guide.  Thankfully they're not yet a law.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure. But the mentioned conventions seem good.   
   >>>   
   >>> If you are proposing generally useful words, and their names violate   
   >>> a common convention, you could probably explain why it is not worth   
   >>> following that convention in this case (or in general).   
   >>   
   >> Convention means doing something in a consistent way unless there's   
   >> a reason to do otherwise.   
   >   
   > And what is your *reason* to do otherwise in this case? ))   
      
   "names that are short and to the point"   
      
   In SwiftForth one finds -? HUH?  Neither return a flag, OTOH both perform   
   a conditional action.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)