Hi Enoch, >> I have absolutely no problem that FORGET will be forgotten. > > Here's an interesting article by one of Forth greats: > "Proposal: un-obsolete FORGET" > http://www.forth200x.org/unobsolete-forget.txt > > The author sees FORGET as a useful tool for hot system upgrade.
Compare FIND with MARKER Find name, then delete name from the dictionary along with all words added to the dictionary after name. vs. Remove the definition of name and all subsequent definitions. As far as I can tell, there is no difference. Both remove not only the word affected but all what's defined afterwards (which somehow contradicts what you want to do, IIRC). > FORGET is useful when a human redefines an existing > word in the command line, finds a bug, and wants to > correct it: FORGET has only one advantage: It does not need planning. My problem with FORGET arises from the sentence "If the Search-Order word set is present, FORGET searches the compilation word list." And the other word lists? That is IMHO the source for fragmentation. > By the way, there are "marketing reasons" for Amforth to acquire > FORGET-fullness :-) LOL. The most ultimate reason... Matthias PS: did you note the dates? Michael wrote his statement in 2009, the forth2012RC was published 3 years later and FORGET is not re-animated there. PPS: I'm not fully and finally against FORGET, I simply won't implement it. And probably never include it into amforth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ Amforth-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
