Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>In article <2012Jun19.175328@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>>>So if I was wary about a program being standard w.r.t. to IF
>>> I could load a preamble.
>>>-----------
>>>: IF STATE @ 0=
>>> ABORT" NONPORTABLE: interpretation semantics of IF is undefined"
>>> POSTPONE IF ; IMMEDIATE
>>>-----------
>>>
>>>and it would only sift out nonportable programs.
>>
>>After this definition the system is non-standard and would fail for
>>some standard programs. That's because your redefined IF has
>>compilation semantics that fail in interpret state.
>
>Apparently I miss the point here. Can you give an example where
>such a preamble would spoil the cake?

: gen-foo ... postpone if ... ;
: bla ... [ 5 gen-foo s" hi" gen-bar ] ... ;

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/