In article <87semzmwok.fsf@nightsong.com>,   
   Paul Rubin   wrote:   
   >albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:   
   >> In hindsight my locals definition is not convincing, because carnal   
   >> knowledge about the behaviour of the return stack is required.   
   >   
   >It's ok if it's for a specific implementation.  But what I'm having   
   >trouble seeing is how the locals get popped in case of an exception.   
      
      
   I showed it as an example of the pretty convincing usefulness   
   of CO. For this the example had to have to be portable.   
      
   A simpler example would be   
   \ Temporary set  some-rounding-mode  for the duration of this word.   
   : rounding set-rounding-mode CO truncate-mode set-rounding-mode ;   
      
   Most uses are ">R CO". If the stuff on the stack is a continuation   
   ("nested-sys") . The arguments against given this combination a   
   name become weaker, while the arguments agains "nested-sys" as   
   a concept become weaker.   
      
   >Do you not need to implement something like (LOCAL) ?   
   I don't use locals. If someone adds it to a ciforth application, let   
   they worry about the interaction between (LOCAL) and THROW.   
      
   Groetjes Albert   
   --   
   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)