From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 13-02-2026 09:27, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   > Hans Bezemer  writes:   
   >> On 12-02-2026 08:35, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   >>> [...] 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 don't think that people who are "implementing Forth as an exercise"   
   >> can be bothered to make it "a standard compiler".   
   >   
   > The point is not standard conformance, but a goalpost: To have   
   > something to direct the work, and also to have something that tells   
   > the implementor when the project is complete.   
   >   
   >> And although wordsets build modularity (which I welcome) it becomes   
   >> useless when it requires you to patch wordsets already implemented.   
   >   
   > Who is "you" in this sentence?  Given that you write "implemented",   
   > you seem to argue that the standard requires the system implementor to   
   > implement the base word, and then to patch it.  This is not the case.   
   > The system implementor who has decided to implement the FILE words in   
   > addition to the CORE words can implement the FILE version of S" from   
   > the start, without any patching.   
   >   
   > Note also that the FILE version of S" conforms to the requirements for   
   > the CORE version of S", and that's generally the case for the extended   
   > versions of words.  E.g., the specification of CORE's POSTPONE   
   > includes   
   >   
   > | An ambiguous condition exists if name is not found.   
   >   
   > so it does not specify what "POSTPONE 123" means.  The proposed   
   > recognizer version of POSTPONE specifies that.   
   >   
   > - anton   
      
   I could have used "one" - wouldn't have changed the meaning. Nice   
   "Whataboutism"! The argument was (and is) what use has a standard for a   
   toy compiler? Things are done when "one" says they're done. You (like   
   "Anton") overestimate the authority of a standards body greatly.   
   Especially when the language concerned is almost dead. There are more   
   people implementing that compiler than writing programs for it!   
      
   And yes - it often happens (I speak from my own experience) that "one"   
   (now clear for you? :) thinks - "that's as far as I want/need to go" and   
   consider otherwise later. And yeah, then "one" has to patch it. Because   
   the word *IS* already defined "one" has to extend its functionality.   
      
   "An ambiguous condition exists if name is not found."   
   That's not a point I addressed. (Not "one").   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)