Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ruvim Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: single-xt approach in the standard Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 12:15:47 +0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:15:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2d49625ab619eb4a06b4d5e9f2582f6"; logging-data="4152937"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+y7Up3PVkZEZUT12F7jxqW" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1L5/4QeL70EJEXkdG1LmdcyOr7o= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2270 On 2024-09-17 14:54, Ruvim wrote: > Do you think that the Forth standard should recognize the classic > single-xt approach as possible for implementing a standard Forth system? > > The classic single-xt approach implies that only one execution token > (xt) is associated with a name token (nt), and only one name token is > associated with a word (a named Forth definition). And words whose > compilation semantics differ form default compilation semantics are > implemented as immediate words. Or, a different question (because you could have another point of view): Do you think that the Forth standard should recognize the classic single-xt approach as *impossible* for implementing a standard Forth system? And consequently, it should be *impossible* for a standard *program* to implement the standard `s"` word (from the File-Access word set) as an immediate word, for example, as: : s" ( "ccc" -- sd | ) [char] " parse state @ if postpone sliteral exit then dup >r allocate throw tuck r@ move r> ; immediate (I.e., you think that currently the above definition implements the standard `s"` word, but it should not in a future version of the standard). -- Ruvim