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


,------------------------------------------
| 2024-07-25 16:53:47  TammoFreese  wrote:
| referenceImplementation - Reuse a test for SOURCE as a starting point for a reference implementation
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/bs#contribution-351
`------------------------------------------
One of the tests of `SOURCE` (the word `GS4`) discards the remainder of the parse area using `SOURCE >IN ! DROP`. Making it immediate may be enough to make it a reference implementation for the backslash word:
```
: \ SOURCE >IN ! DROP ; IMMEDIATE
```


,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2024-07-11 12:53:42  ruv  replies:
| comment - SAVE-INPUT
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/obsolescence-for-save-input-and-restore-input#reply-1266
`------------------------------------------
> ```forth
>  : EXECUTE-PARSING ROT ROT SAVE SET-SRC CATCH RESTORE THROW ;
>  ```

The standard does not allow `save-input` and `restore-input` to be used this way, because the identity of the input source on `restore-input` will not be the same as on `save-input` (but it shall be the same).

> not having REFILL and line by line compilation is too revolutionary.

Not quite.
When the input source is a buffer, `refill` loads the next buffer (not the next line).
When the input source is a multiline string, `refill` does almost nothing (see also my [proposal](https://forth-standard.org/proposals/support-for-single-line-comments-during-evaluate-) for "`\`").

So, not having "line by line compilation" is not something revolutionary.