FSL auxiliary files: proposed reorganization of words

I believe Charles Montgomery first suggested he would like to see this
change, 
in a previous email to me. I'd like to reintroduce this idea here in
c.l.f. for 
input from other users of the FSL. Are there any potential pitfalls?

Reorganize the FSL auxiliary files by moving the following words from
dynmem.x 
to fsl-util.x:

malloc-fail?
cell_size
}malloc
}free
}}malloc
}}free


Then, dynmem.x will only contain ANS compatible definitions of ALLOCATE
and 
FREE, and associated data structures to sup****t these definitions.

The auxiliary file fsl-util.x should correspondingly be modified to
perform a 
conditional include of dynmem.x, based on the value of the constant 
HAS-MEMORY-WORDS?. Thus, the fsl-util.x file will have the following

HAS-MEMORY-WORDS? [IF] include dynmem.x [THEN]

\ or

HAS-MEMORY-WORDS? [IF] s" dynmem.x" included [THEN]

with either one of the above lines to be placed below the definition of 
HAS-MEMORY-WORDS?.

The above reorganization appears to me a more logical grouping of words in
the 
auxiliary files, and will remove the need to include dynmem.x on those
Forth 
systems which sup****t ALLOCATE and FREE. Also, for those Forth systems
which 
don't have ALLOCATE and FREE, the dynmem.x module becomes more generic and
can 
be used in contexts outside of the FSL without the extra baggage.


Krishna