From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/05/2025 4:20 pm, Ruvim wrote:   
   > On 2025-05-09 04:54, dxf wrote:   
   >> On 8/05/2025 10:50 pm, Ruvim wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-05-08 06:52, dxf wrote:   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't see such a reason. The application can simply do   
   >>> `abort` or `-56 throw` (and no special cases are needed).   
   >>   
   >> Yes but those would be workarounds.  It's making the argument   
   >> QUIT can't or shouldn't be caught whereas I'm talking about   
   >> entitlement.   
   >   
   > `BYE` and `EXIT` cannot be caught too.   
      
   QUIT is in the table; those are not.  Besides BYE is an optional tool   
   and I've no idea what use is a catchable EXIT .   
   > `QUIT` can be considered by the Forth program as a kind of `BYE` that   
   immediately returns control to the Forth shell (when `BYE` returns control to   
   the host OS).   
   >   
   >   
   >> Speaking of entitlement, ANS made EXCEPTION EXT a one-way street.   
   >> There's no rolling back from the changes.   
   >   
   > If you mean that EXCEPTION EXT is not actually optional in itself, but must   
   be provided if EXCEPTION is provided — yes, I agree.   
      
   Not what I said but if you're going to enforce a catchable ABORT and   
   ABORT" then why omit QUIT - and if you do - why is it in table?   
      
   We can keep going round in circles but ISTM what's needed is a rationale.   
   Because I'm not seeing one in ANS.  Folks have implemented what it said   
   but can't explain it.  Hence the Bible allusion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)