In article <1043831$3ggg9$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Ruvim   wrote:   
   >On 2025-07-02 15:37, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   >> In article <1042s2o$3d58h$1@dont-email.me>,   
   >> Ruvim   wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-06-24 01:03, minforth wrote:   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>>> For me, the small syntax extension is a convenience when working   
   >>>> with longer definitions. A bit contrived (:= synonym for TO):   
   >>>>   
   >>>> : SOME-APP { a f: b c | temp == n: flag z: freq }   
   >>>> \ inputs: integer a, floats b c   
   >>>> \ uninitialized: float temp   
   >>>> \ outputs: integer flag, complex freq   
   >>>>    <: FUNC < ... calc function ... > ;>   
   >>>   
   >>> BTW, why do you prefer the special syntax `<: ... ;>`   
   >>> over an extension to the existing words `:` and `;`   
   >>>   
   >>>    : SOME-APP   
   >>>       [ : FUNC < ... calc function ... > ; ]   
   >>>       < ... >   
   >>>    ;   
   >>>   
   >>> In this approach the word `:` knows that it's a nested definition and   
   >>> behaves accordingly.   
   >>   
   >> Or it has not even know it, if [ is smart enough to compile a jump to   
   >> after ].   
   >   
   >This can be tricky because the following should work:   
   >   
   >   create foo [ 123 , ] [ 456 ,   
   >   
   >   : bar  [ ' foo compile, 123 lit, ] ;   
      
   If this bothers you, rename it in [[ ]].   
      
   Once we enhance [ ] to do things prohibited by the standard,   
   (adding nested definitions) I can't be bothered with this too much.   
   >--   
   >Ruvim   
   >   
   Groetjes Albert   
   --   
   The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.   
   The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy   
   over 80 years, like Western Europe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)