From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 10-01-2025 00:54, dxf wrote:   
   > The >R dependency is on what was (and perhaps still is) 'common practice'.   
   > I was unsure how it would fare but all the popular forths seem to work.   
   > If ANS-FORTH has issued one too many 'Thou shalt not's and in doing so has   
   > excluded itself then that's too bad.   
      
   Oh, you won't find me on the side of "the standard". As a matter of   
   fact, 4tH allows a lot of things that the standard doesn't allow and   
   vice versa. But I think it is a useful tool when deciding what SHOULD be   
   portable or SHOULDN'T be portable.   
      
   In general, I'm all for adopting "common practice" (I'm not going to   
   list all my exceptions). In this case - why not?   
      
   1. It's very hard to enforce (unless you flag all RS items - ugly - or   
   separate the call stack);   
   2. It's useful to create e.g. co-routines;   
   3. I don't recommend the practice, though. It's hard to wrap your head   
   around and in 4tH it may clash with the tail call optimizer. But since   
   4tH is completely sandboxed, you can't do much damage. If you (attempt   
   to) jump outside the box, the program is halted.   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)