From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 02-07-2025 18:41, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   > Those who have a Forth system that implements locals don't object to   
   > the use of locals, those whose Forth system does not implement them,   
   > do.  Looks like the objections are sour-grapes arguments.   
     Oooh - I've seen a *LOT* of bad and ill-informed arguments on c.l.f.   
   but this most certainly makes the top 10! :)   
      
   1. Adding general locals is trivial. It takes just one single line of   
   Forth. Sure, you don't got the badly designed and much too heavy   
   Forth-2012 implementation, but it works just as well. It also proves   
   that IF Chuck had wanted locals, that it would be a trivial addition.   
      
   2. It also means the resistance is *NOT* due to the difficulty of   
   implementation. 4tH v3.64.2 will even support a *MUCH* lighter, but   
   fully conformant Forth-2012 LOCALS implementation. And if I can do it,   
   so can others I suppose (Forth-2012 or not). So that argument is moot.   
      
   3. "Looks like the objections are sour-grapes arguments." No, I have   
   given far more arguments than you have. I'm not gonna repeat them in a   
   forum that has already archived them. If anything, yours is a prime   
   example of a "sour grape argument".   
      
   Your turn!   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)