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


,------------------------------------------
| 2021-08-20 20:54:31  MatteoVitturi  wrote:
| comment - There is an error in testing
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/WHILE#contribution-208
`------------------------------------------
GI5 don't compile correctly. To cope with subsequent test it should be as follow.

```
T{ : GI5 DUP 2 > IF BEGIN 
         DUP 5 < WHILE DUP 1+ REPEAT 
         123 ELSE 345 THEN ; -> }T
```


,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2021-08-19 02:27:37  MitraArdron  replies:
| testcase - More general Testcase
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/DEPTH#reply-712
`------------------------------------------
I hit a similar problem and think it would be better not to depend on START-DEPTH instead 
```
T{  DEPTH DEPTH - -> -1 }T
T{  DEPTH  0 SWAP DEPTH  -  ->  0 -1    }T
T{ DEPTH 0 1 ROT DEPTH -   ->  0 1 -2      }T
```



,------------------------------------------
| 2021-08-19 13:34:23  MatteoVitturi  replies:
| testcase - More general Testcase
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/DEPTH#reply-713
`------------------------------------------
@MitraArdron :
I agree with you !
I've tried your suggestions and I have to say the last two don't work because the final negative literal is one off. 
They should be:
```
T{  DEPTH  0 SWAP DEPTH  -  ->  0 -2    }T
T{  DEPTH 0 1 ROT DEPTH -   ->  0 1 -3      }T
```

Then, following your method, I would add some more:
```
T{  DEPTH 9 8  ->  9 8 DEPTH 2 - ROT ROT  }T
T{  DEPTH 9    ->  9   DEPTH 1 - SWAP     }T
T{  9 DEPTH    ->  DEPTH 9 SWAP  1 +      }T
T{  9 8 DEPTH  ->  DEPTH 9 8 ROT 2 +      }T
```




,------------------------------------------
| 2021-08-20 11:25:13  MatteoVitturi  replies:
| requestClarification - Why "[" is specified using immediacy?
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/Bracket#reply-714
`------------------------------------------
Read it in reverse, [ is the only word this Standard explicitly declares IMMEDIATE  _and_ whose Interpretation semantics are undefined. 

In this perspective [ is a most peculiar word that cannot be easily compared with other words with undefined interpretation semantics such as IF or others alike because [ is not STATE-dependant like them: in fact it is the opposite i.e. STATE is [-dependant since STATE is modified by  [  independantly from what the current (value of) STATE is. 

AFAIK there is only one more word this Standard explicitly declares IMMEDIATE i.e. \  the comment till EOL. 

Both [ and \ (if you want them to perform their duty _and_ you aren't creating some special word) _just cannot_ be compiled and the only way to accpmplish this is having them IMMEDIATE. 

Having ] undefined interpretation semantics seems a bit misleading but it IMHO means that there is no reason or no useful effect to use it while not compiling.

_Matteo_





,------------------------------------------
| 2021-08-20 21:56:52  MatteoVitturi  replies:
| comment - There is an error in testing
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/WHILE#reply-715
`------------------------------------------
GI5 don't compile correctly. To cope with subsequent tests it should be as follow.

```
T{ : GI5 DUP 2 > IF BEGIN 
         DUP 5 < WHILE DUP 1+ REPEAT 
         123 ELSE 345 THEN ; -> }T
```