In article <2024Dec21.122624@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   Anton Ertl  wrote:   
      
   >The relevance is that with cooperative multi-tasking a possible usage   
   >pattern of PAD would be to use it between two PAUSEs, but not across   
   >PAUSE etc.  That usage would be compatible with having only one PAD.   
   >With preemptive multi-tasking (and parallel processing) one would need   
   >to use a mutual exclusion construct around such usages (and existing   
   >Forth code using PAD certainly does not have that).   
      
   I have looked into that for ciforth and that is not the case.   
   By duplicating the dictionary the PAD is automatically changed   
   because task have separate set of user variables, notably HERE.   
      
   Thinking of this ...   
   If the parallel forth's are running in separate cores, and   
   compile at the same time, the buffer used by the WANT mechanism can   
   get conflicting uses.   
   So I originally used PAD and changed that to a dedicated buffer,   
   but it is better to change it back. This saves 4 WOC.   
      
   You cannot use PAD to collect information during compilation,   
   but that is an insanely bad idea.   
      
   >   
   >- anton   
   --   
   Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)   
   Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall   
   Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,   
   And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)