From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/05/2025 3:52 am, Ruvim wrote:   
   > ...   
   > I use `quit` only for testing and debugging. And I expect to get into the   
   Forth text interpreter (Forth shell) exactly in the current program state (as   
   far as possible).   
   >   
   > If `quit` simply calls `-56 throw`, the program state will probably change   
   (due to actions after `catch` in the program, including restoring the data   
   stack depth in `throw`) when you get into the Forth shell. Also, there is a   
   chance that you will not    
   get into the Forth shell at all if the program does not re-throw the error in   
   some places.   
   >   
   > So I would not recommend the suggested deviation in the `quit` behavior even   
   for new implementers, since this brakes the well-known expectation from   
   `quit`. A better way is to introduce another word with desired behavior   
   deviation.   
      
   ANS never gave a rationale for ABORT ABORT" QUIT - only options that we're now   
   exploring.   
      
   For the reasons you've stated I'm reluctant to define:   
      
   : QUIT -56 THROW ;   
      
   But are there reasons an application might were THROW able to handle it?  It's   
   arguable ANS left the door open.  Just because the spec for THROW didn't   
   special-case -56 doesn't mean an implementer can't.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)