Reading the Forth-94 draft proposal, it reads as if the SEARCH words
are supposed to provide a general foundation for building a wordlist
management system.

However, it does not seem that the capability of FORTH in SEARCH EXT
can necessarily be duplicated.

-1 SET-ORDER

and you are faced with whatever the system thinks is a minimal search-
order, with FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER is guaranteed to to be
available.

But you cannot necessarily *use* SET-ORDER to *bring* FORTH-WORDLIST
into the search order.

That is, (1) SET-ORDER needs a set of wordlists and a count.

(2) The only wordlist you can guarantee that you know about is FORTH-
WORDLIST

And (3) ``FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER'' is not guaranteed to work.

FORTH-WORDLIST has to provide the FORTH core when replacing the top of
the search order stack, but a system is not required to function with
nothing but FORTH-WORDLIST on the search-order stack. It is within its
rights to trap that as an error and abort.

Bruce McFarling netscape.net> wrote:

On Mar 11, 5:11 pm, Josh Grams qualdan.com> wrote:

First, I ran it, and it was an error. Then I opened the dpANS pdf and
read the standard SEARCH words.

There is nothing in the specification of FORTH-WORDLIST or of SET-
ORDER that explicitly requires ``FORTH-WORDLIST 1 SET-ORDER'' to
function as I had expected, and FORTH-WORDLIST and SET-ORDER are the
only words required to be present when you:

``-1 SET-ORDER''.

That's how I reached that conclusion.

A.16 is probably why I expected it would work, but its not part of
specification. If that was the intention, Forth200x could make that
intention explicit.

Bruce McFarling netscape.net> wrote:

Can I ask what Forth this is?

I'd be inclined to take a less-inclusive view and say that since
the specification of SET-ORDER doesn't explicitly say that an
implementation may reject arbitrary search orders, or that you
have to base your search orders on an existing one instead of
passing whatever you want, that the behaviour you're seeing is
non-standard. But it doesn't really matter, since you want to
port to that system anyway...

On Mar 12, 8:02 am, Josh Grams qualdan.com> wrote:

gforth 6.2

On Mar 12, 11:30 am, Bruce McFarling netscape.net> wrote:
[snip]

Not here:

Gforth 0.6.2, Copyright (C) 1995-2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
Type `bye' to exit
-1 set-order ok
order Root Root Forth ok
forth-wordlist 1 set-order ok
order Forth Forth ok

On Mar 12, 12:09 pm, Neal Bridges gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:09 pm, Neal Bridges gmail.com> wrote:

Bruce McFarling netscape.net> writes:

That would be a bug. However, I cannot reproduce it.

m_l_g3@yahoo.com writes:

Yes, that's a bug in 0.6.2. It is fixed in the development version.

- anton