Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 16:09:36 +1000
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <89b694975a4966b64bf1b89de5b2136057f405bf@i2pn2.org>
References: <f827ba6fc80427f3ce0317835bd8ae47a4445e07@i2pn2.org>
 <nnd$5d07338c$61b87fbd@d4d89ef8da41e19e>
 <nnd$110fb7e8$4dcc4e5b@7bbd872876625f12>
 <nnd$4a556964$65be8f1e@0fce8f78c54657e5>
 <d16b6924f6dae8d40a529e36e70bd03c50755741@i2pn2.org>
 <2025Jun3.081034@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <daf531f19ecb07c75994e9c0b371001c79f6929a@i2pn2.org>
 <101q6ik$10htc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 06:09:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3352652"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="XPw7UV90Iy7EOhY4YuUXhpdoEf5Vz7K+BsxA/Cx8bVc";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <101q6ik$10htc$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/06/2025 5:25 am, sean@conman.org wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> once stated:
>>
>> Perhaps the TC went along with Mitch.  CATCH THROW was his idea and
>> here's a bunch of codes to go with it.  The extent to which a tiny forth
>> is going to use ANS is dubious.  
> 
>   What constitutes a "tiny Forth"? 

In the context of the conversation tiny enough to question the inclusion of
error messages.  An example might be Fig-Forth which used numbers for errors
but if mass storage was available displayed the associated string.  Albert's
Fig-Forth for CP/M was 7K.

> Because I just implemented ANS Forth [1]
> for the 6809 [2], and I included CATCH and THROW.  It's almost 12K in size
> and for the wordsets it implements, it passes the ANS Forth test suite.  I
> implemented the EXCEPTION wordset because it seems a 2017 update mandated
> it's use.  While I'm not a fan of exceptions, it wasn't hard to implement
> and it seemed better thought out than SYNONYM [4].
> 
>   -spc
> 
> [1]	I implemented CORE, CORE-EXT, DOUBLE, DOUBLE-EXT, EXCEPTION,
> 	EXCEPTION-EXT, LOCAL, LOCAL-EXT, TOOLS, some of TOOLS-EXT [3],
> 	SEARCH, SEARCH-EXT, STRING and STRING-EXT.
> 
> [2]	https://github.com/spc476/ANS-Forth
> 
> [3]	Words implemented from TOOLS-EXT: AHEAD, BYE, CS-PICK, CS_ROLL, N>R,
> 	NAME>COMPILE, NAME>INTERPRET, NAME>STRING, NR>, STATE,
> 	TRAVERSE-WORDLIST, [DEFINED], [ELSE], [IF], [THEN], [UNDEFINED].
>
> [4]	When reading about it [5], I decided I didn't want anything to do
> 	with that quagmire of a word.
> 
> [5]	https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/SYNONYM

Sounds like you're beginning to question the Standard :)  Once I did, I was
able to remove things I never used, freeing up space for things no standard
will ever include.