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


,------------------------------------------
| 2024-08-12 13:32:06  ruv  wrote:
| requestClarification - Behavior of EMPTY-BUFFERS when BLK is nonzero
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/block/EMPTY-BUFFERS#contribution-359
`------------------------------------------
Should not we add:
> An ambiguous condition exists if `BLK` contains a non-zero when `EMPTY-BUFFERS` is invoked.



,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2024-08-12 07:40:55  ruv  replies:
| comment - Resolve the forward reference orig1 using the location following the appended run-time semantics.
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/ELSE#reply-1292
`------------------------------------------
> It talks about then patching the branch added by `else`

The spec does not use the term "patching". Some Forth systems employ two-pass compilation of a definition (it is allowed), without any patching. If you patch a branch — it's your implementation detail.

Anyway, we can forget about `else` for a moment. The following shall work without errors:
```forth
: bool-to-n ( x -- 1|0 ) if 1 ahead [ 1 cs-roll ] then 0 then ;

t{ false bool-to-n -> 0 }t
t{ true  bool-to-n -> 1 }t
```

And the Forth system **is allowed** to compile the above definition to a code that does not contain **any branches at all**, for example to a code like this:
```
: bool-to-n ( x -- 1|0 ) [: 1 ;] [: 0 ;] ifelse ;
```

Where `ifelse` does not perform any jump/branch, but only an indirect call:
```
: ifelse ( i*x  x.bool  xt.on-true xt.on-false -- j*x )
  rot 0= tuck and ( xt.on-true flag xt.on-false|0 )
  -rot 0= and ( xt.on-false|0 xt.on-true|0 )
  or execute
;
```



,------------------------------------------
| 2024-08-12 20:23:21  ruv  replies:
| requestClarification - shadowed names
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/TRAVERSE-WORDLIST#reply-1293
`------------------------------------------
Just for reference. We forgot that the [change in wording for `traverse-wordlist`](https://forth-standard.org/proposals/traverse-wordlist-does-not-find-unnamed-unfinished-definitions?hideDiff#reply-487) was accepted in 2020. And it says that the old wording (i.e., that in Forth-2012) already gives guarantee that the shadowed words are visited.