From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 24/09/2025 8:41 am, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article <2025Sep23.190034@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   > ...   
   >>   
   >> However, LITERAL is a standard word that a conforming implementation   
   >> cannot implement in a state-smart way.   
   >>   
   >> : lit, postpone literal ;   
   >> : foo [ 1 lit, ] ;   
   >> foo . \ 1   
   >   
   > This shows me how to Lift this defect. Rename LITERAL to (LIT) and   
   > define   
   > : LITERAL 'LIT , , ;  IMMEDIATE   
   > Then the above test succeeds.   
   > The interpretation syntax of LITERAL is undefined.   
   > LIT, is a sneaky way to have an interpretation syntax.   
   > Normal is   
   >    : foo [ 1 ] LITERAL ;   
   >   
   > In the standard:   
   > LITERAL :   
   > Interpretation: Interpretation syntax for this word is undefined.   
   >   
   > What if the standard says   
   >    execution of this word while in interpret mode is an ambiguous condition   
   >   
   > then I would gladly throw an exception if anybody tries it and the examples   
   > wouldn't fly.   
      
   Agreed.  But the loophole frequently argued by parties since Forth-94 is that   
   it was a 'minimum specification' supported by 'ambiguous conditions'.  The   
   latter ought not be seen as eternal damnation, rather the potential for more   
   heavenly rewards.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)