On Jun 20, 7:09*am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <2012Jun19.175...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
> >Anton Ertl <an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> >>Albert van der Horst <alb...@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 ] ... ;

So if source is trying, while interpreting, to perform the compilation
semantics of a word that doesn't necessarily have interpretation
behavior, that will be problematic?

Or, IOW, its problematic for source code with an implementation
dependency on a word containing postponed compilation semantics
functioning in interpretation state.