From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 27/03/2025 11:02 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > 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 ;   
   > ...   
      
   Actually it was that example which caused me to *not* go ahead   
   and implement ;: in the kernel despite a cost of only one header.   
   How many calls to 'rounding' will you encounter in an application?   
   My guess is one.  The usual example is HEX: but I already had (H.N)   
   that's more flexible.  For me at least locals was more credible but   
   again it fell into a range.  For a single use I'd do it manually;   
   for extensive use (where exceptions etc are likely) a proper locals   
   may be the only option.  OTOH such decision-making is exactly what   
   Forth has always been about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)