,---------------.
| Contributions |
`---------------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2020-08-29 08:10:26  ruv  wrote:
| requestClarification - Getting execution semantics from nt 
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools#contribution-151
`------------------------------------------
How can we conclude from _nt_, do **identifiable** execution semantics are defined for the corresponding definition? And how to get the corresponding _xt_, if any?

By "identifiable" I mean that these semantics may be identified by an execution token _xt_ — to exclude the cases of the words like [`EXIT`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/EXIT), [`>R`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/toR), etc, that have only nominal execution semantics  (see also news:[r2u5p3$n4p$1@dont-email.me](https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=comp.lang.forth/1SDLacsZprk/R5gglBZyAwAJ)).



,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2020-08-29 08:14:47  ruv  replies:
| requestClarification - Get execution semantics from nt
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/search#reply-437
`------------------------------------------
I mistakenly placed this question into wrong section. The right [variant](https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools#contribution-151) is placed into the standard/tools section now.


,------------------------------------------
| 2020-08-29 11:22:50  ruv  replies:
| proposal - Same name token for different words
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/same-name-token-for-different-words#reply-438
`------------------------------------------
### Why it is important

If the same _nt_ is allowed then:

1. `SYNONYM` **may** rely on that when `newname` and `oldname` are the same.

2. `TRAVERSE-WORDLIST` may produce the same _nt_ several times during iteration of one word list, or between iterations of several word lists (see also the [comment](/standard/tools#reply-320)).

If the same _nt_ is not allowed, it guarantees uniqueness of each _nt_ during iterations of all available word lists via `TRAVERSE-WORDLIST`.



,------------------------------------------
| 2020-08-29 12:28:14  ruv  replies:
| proposal - Recognizer
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/recognizer#reply-439
`------------------------------------------
Take a note on [Comparison of terminology to some past proposals](https://gist.github.com/ruv/af796cece2ecd2ee541d883a04483dcc#file-11-comparision-to-some-past-versions-md).

For example, it shows that "to translate" is important and very useful term.



,------------------------------------------
| 2020-08-29 16:09:53  ruv  replies:
| proposal - OPTIONAL IEEE 754 BINARY FLOATING-POINT WORD SET
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/optional-ieee-754-binary-floating-point-word-set#reply-440
`------------------------------------------
> the lower 32-bits of each cell value of udfraction are concatenated to provide the binary fraction bits of the mantissa

What is the rationale that instead of taking udfraction as a number you take and concatenate the lower 32 bits of each its cell?



,------------------------------------------
| 2020-08-29 16:46:36  AntonErtl  replies:
| requestClarification - Getting execution semantics from nt 
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools#reply-441
`------------------------------------------
You can use `name>interpret` to get an xt for the interpretation semantics of a word (if present).

For most words the interpretation semantics are the same as the execution semantics.  For the cases where that is not the case, what's your interest in execution semantics? Especially given that you seem not to be interested in words like `exit` and `>r` where execution semantics are defined but interpretation semantics are not.

My take is that "execution semantics" for named words is only a vehicle for defining interpretation and compilation semantics through the default mechanisms in 3.4.3; that's why most words with explicitly defined interpretation and compilation semantics have no defined execution semantics.  So there is no point in reifying the execution semantics in addition to interpretation and compilation semantics.

In other words, assume we introduce a `name>execution`.  What would you use it for?  Can these uses not be accomplished with  `name>interpret` and `name>compile`?




,------------------------------------------
| 2020-08-29 20:55:48  JennyBrien  replies:
| proposal - Same name token for different words
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/same-name-token-for-different-words#reply-442
`------------------------------------------
I can't see any useful implementation in which two definitions would share an nt. If you think to the dictionary as a database of all the properties of definitions then the nt is the key field. Several nt`s may share a name or an xt , but not vice versa.