From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/05/2025 5:18 am, Ruvim wrote:   
   > On 2025-05-09 12:20, dxf wrote:   
   >> On 9/05/2025 4:20 pm, Ruvim wrote:   
   > ...   
   > I wonder what you meant by "ANS made EXCEPTION EXT a one-way street".   
      
   ANS doesn't require ABORT ABORT" be catchable if CATCH THROW is implemented.   
   EXCEPTION EXT contradicts that entitlement and once implemented the effect   
   can't readily be undone.   
      
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > I think, `QUIT` is in the table by a mistake.   
   >   
   > Regarding `ABORT` and `ABORT"` (and many other in Forth-2012) — they   
   should not go into this table since this table formally reserves throw codes   
   for *ambiguous conditions* only.   
      
   Easier to remove the word "ambiguous".  It's a convenience that all the   
   reserved codes should be listed in one 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Perhaps you could write the rationale?   
      
   Not as things stand.  There are contradictions words can't bend.  OTOH   
   one might change the Standard to reflect common practice - often used   
   as a rationale in itself.  It would mean removing some entitlements ANS   
   gave but if nobody cares about them...   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)