How does this Mini-OOF thing work, again?

Mini-OOF is (this is mini-oof.fs from gforth 0.6.2):

\ Mini-OOF                                                 12apr98py
: method ( m v "name" -- m' v ) Create  over , swap cell+ swap
  DOES> ( ... o -- ... ) @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 over @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 execute ;
: var ( m v size "name" -- m v' ) Create  over , +
  DOES> ( o -- addr ) @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + ;
: class ( class -- class methods vars ) dup 2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ;
: end-class  ( class methods vars "name" -- )
  Create  here >r , dup , 2 cells ?DO ['] noop , 1 cells +LOOP
  cell+ dup cell+ r> rot @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 2 cells /string move ;
: defines ( xt class "name" -- ) ' >body @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + ! ;
: new ( class -- o )  here over @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 allot swap over ! ;
: :: ( class "name" -- ) ' >body @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 compile, ;
Create object  1 cells , 2 cells ,

From the example file (moof-exm.fs), I had got the impression that
methods are called with their object on top of stack, but the above
suggests that's not so. That is, moof-exm.fs has code like:

:noname ( addr u o -- ) >r
    0 r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 x ! 0 r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 y ! r@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 len ! r> text !
; button defines init

where the stack comment makes me think that the phrase:

s" thin foo" foo init

not only uses the object-id of ``foo'' but starts executing the method
with the object-id of ``foo'' on the top of stack.

However when I try:

include mini-oof.fs

object class
method actor ( o -- )
method test$ ( o -- ca u )
end-class test-object

:noname ( o -- ) test$ CR TYPE ; test-object defines actor
:noname ( o -- ca u ) DROP S" Testing." ; test-object defines test$

: Testing ( -- ) test-object actor ;
Testing

I get an invalid memory address in Testing, in actor, when it does a
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 I called actor as:

( -- ) test-object ( -- o ) actor

and its action is:
DOES> ( ... o -- ... ) @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 over @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 execute ;

.... it would seem that when it does the ``OVER'', there's nothing
really on the stack, so its not surprising that it @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's garbage.

Should that be:

DOES> ( ... o -- ... ) DUP @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 over @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 + @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 execute ;