From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/07/2025 8:09 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:   
   > 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!   
      
   Ask Google.  Enter 'Forth and locals' with AI enabled.  It pretty much tells   
   you locals are ok.  How does Google know?  Well, it mentions Gforth :)   
      
   FWIW DX-Forth comes with locals.  It was made it as fast as possible for   
   the express purpose of letting users compare.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)