> George Hubert wrote:

>> On 28 Apr, 16:08, Andreas Kochenburger nospam.org> wrote:

>>> George Hubert wrote:

>>>> So FOO doesn't exist and I do the following (for a Forth200X
>>>> system).
>>>> defer blah
>>>> ' foo is blah
>>>> blah
>>>> the definition of Defer in the 200X standard would have to be
>>>> altered to reflect the new ambiguous condition!

>>> ?? I don't get it.

>

>>> ' foo would return 0.
>>> Either IS would refuse 0, or blah would refuse to run.

>> The definition of IS doesn't mention refusing 0 (or any
>> other value that isn't an xt, so logically it should put
>> the value into the deferred word). Equally DEFER
>> doesn't say what it does with 0 (or anything that's
>> not an xt; it could simply pass them to execute, ...