IRC Log - 2025-09-11 - ##forth

Channel: ##forth
Total messages: 26
Time range: 02:44:10 - 23:56:18
Most active: KipIngram (9), cleobuline (6), forthBot (6)
02:44:10 ##forth <cleobuline> forth: 1 2 3 4 5 3 ROLL .S
02:44:18 ##forth <cleobuline> forthBot: 1 2 3 4 5 3 ROLL .S
02:44:19 ##forth <forthBot> <5> 1 3 4 5 2
04:44:19 ##forth <forthBot> Environment for cleobuline inactive, freeing...
09:59:18 ##forth <cleobuline> forthBot: 1 2 3 4 5 4 ROLL .S
09:59:19 ##forth <forthBot> <5> 2 3 4 5 1
11:59:18 ##forth <forthBot> Environment for cleobuline inactive, freeing...
12:02:06 ##forth <cleobuline> yet forthBot is still a shit that is useless to pollute the planet
13:18:41 ##forth <cleobuli_> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bricklin
14:42:47 ##forth <KipIngram> https://imgur.com/a/SHjTofP
14:44:17 ##forth <KipIngram> https://www.youtube.com/@HansBezemer/featured
18:21:25 ##forth <KipIngram> So guys - I had a thought this morning and wonder if anyone's see it in play anywhere.
18:21:37 ##forth <KipIngram> Normally when Forth encounters an unrecognized word, it immediately throws an error.
18:22:26 ##forth <KipIngram> The thought was that instead of doing that, it could remember the details of that word and mark a pending error, but not throw an actual error until later. That would give the intervening words an opportunity to "do something" with that symbol and clear the error condition.
18:22:49 ##forth <KipIngram> So you could put symbol handlers after words instead of before, if that was for some reason of any value.
18:23:16 ##forth <KipIngram> You could manage that delay period and other details a lot of ways, offering varying amounts of flexibility as to what you could accomplish.
18:28:09 ##forth <vdupras> do you have an example of interesting semantics that this mechanism would enable? I struggle to imagine them
18:29:02 ##forth <KipIngram> Not one that I necessarily think I'd WANT to do, but the simplest example I can imagine is that you could say <name> : ... instead of : name ... I don't see that as of much value, but you COULD - the : could pick the name up from the staging place rather than the input stream.
18:33:10 ##forth <vdupras> without a compelling use case, a simpler Forth is strictly better.
18:33:42 ##forth <KipIngram> I agree - I was mostly just wondering if anyone had ever played with such an idea. After all - all of us as a collective seem to eventually get around to every idea, good or bad.
21:53:27 ##forth <MrMobius> KipIngram: if I understand what you mean, that's what I'm doing with my forth
21:53:56 ##forth <MrMobius> a word can call a word that hasn't been defined yet and it doesn't throw an error until you try to run it
23:55:57 ##forth <cleobuline> MrMobius: bizarre
23:56:17 ##forth <cleobuline> forthBot: : test undefined ;
23:56:17 ##forth <forthBot> Unknown word in definition: undefined
23:56:18 ##forth <forthBot> Error: Definition discarded due to error