Re: Is there a hole in the SEARCH wordset?

Bruce McFarling <agila61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> But you cannot necessarily *use* SET-ORDER to *bring* FORTH-WORDLIST
> into the search order.
>
> That is, (1) SET-ORDER needs a set of wordlists and a count.
>
> (2) The only wordlist you can guarantee that you know about is FORTH-
> WORDLIST
>
> And (3) ``FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER'' is not guaranteed to work.
>
> FORTH-WORDLIST has to provide the FORTH core when replacing the top of
> the search order stack, but a system is not required to function with
> nothing but FORTH-WORDLIST on the search-order stack. It is within its
> rights to trap that as an error and abort.

How did you get to that conclusion?  A.16 does say that some systems
need pseudo-wordlists in the search order to be able to understand
numeric literals, but you don't need numeric literals to define FORTH
or
ALSO.  So...I may be wrong, but I don't think that a standard system
should treat FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER as an error.

Also I don't see why you would get yourself in that situation in the
first place.  Just define ONLY-FORTH or something, and use that
instead
of -1 SET-ORDER.

: ONLY-FORTH -1 SET-ORDER GET-ORDER FORTH-WORDLIST SWAP 1+ SET-ORDER ;

I can see that the standard might be a bit ambiguous, but I don't see
that it really matters.

Just my two cents,

--Josh