From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/02/2025 2:25 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:   
   > ...   
   > I'm sure it works - but IMHO it heavily depends on whether those words are   
   primitives or not. E.g. in 4tH this expends to:   
   >   
   > : local r> rot rot dup @ over >r >r ! ;: r> r> ! ;   
   >   
   > And if I want to be pedantic, I have to include two SWAPs as well for the   
   proper definition of 2>R and 2R>    
      
   Of course but for most forths it should be fine.   
      
   > - not to mention that you sometimes *DON'T* want to initialize your locals.   
      
   Well, now we're talking about something that's not the norm for locals and   
   that may be worth a discussion.   
      
   >   
   > Another (consequential) disadvantage of this definition is that you have to   
   *DEFINE* your words in reverse - a drawback which it shares with the original   
   ANS LOCALS wordset.   
      
   Drawback for those wanting locals that fake a stack comment.  IIRC iForth has   
   LOCAL so clearly not everyone is fussed.  If I use locals I'm more likely to   
   use the ANS notation.  I notice Forth Inc does too - perhaps why they were so   
   adverse to conceding to { } .   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)