From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 12-02-2026 08:35, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   > Hans Bezemer  writes:   
   >> Extending the functionality of already defined words (in previous   
   >> wordsets) was always a weak point of ANS-94. I don't know if other   
   >> language standards use this, but I don't feel comfortable with   
   >> "redefining" or "extending" words.   
   >   
   > Most other standards don't try to cater to small implementations as   
   > much as the Forth standard does.  It's pretty pointless, though: Big   
   > implementations implement almost everything, and small implementations   
   > pick and choose from the standard requirements anyway, even among the   
   > requirements for CORE words.  The CORE wordset has only been a   
   > goalpost for peoplle who implement Forth as an exercise.   
   >   
   >> I still think that meddling with the text interpreter is a big no-no and   
   >> an invitation to disaster. Never leave to a computer that which a   
   >> programmer can signify as his intent.   
   >   
   > Recognizers provide additional ways for programmers to signify as   
   > their intent.   
   >   
   > - anton   
      
   I don't think that people who are "implementing Forth as an exercise"   
   can be bothered to make it "a standard compiler". So I don't see a true   
   argument here.   
      
   And although wordsets build modularity (which I welcome) it becomes   
   useless when it requires you to patch wordsets already implemented. I   
   mean - that it depends on other wordsets, I think that's unavoidable.   
   But patching those wordsets? That's just bad engineering.   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)