> Jonah Thomas cavtel.net> wrote Re: R> DROP in GForth
> [..]

>> So the new method adds essentially nothing to the complexity of the
>> system. It provides powerful flow control for slightly less overhead
>> than you'd use for errors.

>
> I remember from the old CLF BacForth threads that this leads to quite
> impenetrable, very difficult to read, code (mlg, Albert van der Horst,
> Chris Jakeman). And worse, I don't remember any useful examples of
> what could be done in much better ways.
>
> So maybe you could reverse the flow of arguments and first tell us
> what you want to accomplish with this proposal?

> On Tue, 1 May 2007 23:01:04 +0200
> mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:
>

>> Jonah Thomas cavtel.net> wrote Re: R> DROP in GForth
>> [..]

>>> So the new method adds essentially nothing to the complexity of the
>>> system. It provides powerful flow control for slightly less overhead
>>> than you'd use for errors.

>> I remember from the old CLF BacForth threads that this leads to quite
>> impenetrable, very difficult to read, code (mlg, Albert van der Horst,
>> Chris Jakeman). And worse, I don't remember any useful examples of
>> what could be done in much better ways.
>>
>> So maybe you could reverse the flow of arguments and first tell us
>> what you want to accomplish with this proposal?

>
> OK. I occasionally run into situations that seem to demand complex
> control flow structures.
> ...