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


,------------------------------------------
| 2026-09-12 15:19:31  ruv  wrote:
| referenceImplementation - Udate reference implementation for `ALSO`
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/search/ALSO#contribution-448
`------------------------------------------
The original reference implementation does not handle the case where the search order is empty.

```forth
: ALSO ( -- )
    GET-ORDER DUP 0= IF -50 THROW THEN
    OVER SWAP 1+ SET-ORDER
;
```

NB: the search order overflow should be checked in `set-order`.
See also: the section [16.4.1.2 Ambiguous conditions](https://forth-standard.org/standard/search#subsubsection.16.4.1.2),  [Table 9.1](https://forth-standard.org/standard/exception#table:throw:~:text=search%2Dorder%20underflow), and contribution [#447](https://forth-standard.org/standard/search/ALSO#contribution-447).



,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2026-09-12 07:09:17  BerndPaysan  replies:
| proposal - New words: latest-name and latest-name-in
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/new-words-latest-name-and-latest-name-in#reply-1757
`------------------------------------------
If I have the case of a data type needs checking and throwing if it's not correct, I usually create a word that throws on error:

```
: ?nt ( nt|0 -- nt ) \ throws on nt=0
    dup 0= -80 and throw ;
```

Then the cases where there needs to be a check can have that check, and it's a short word to insert, e.g.

```
: immediate ( -- ) immediate-mask latest-name ?nt >flags or! ;
```


,------------------------------------------
| 2026-09-12 15:06:02  ruv  replies:
| requestClarification - What should happen when calling ALSO when the search order is empty?
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/search/ALSO#reply-1758
`------------------------------------------
> I don't understand what would happen if the search order is empty.

This is an implicit ambiguous condition: it should obviously have been declared, but was likely overlooked.

The Table 9.1 contains a throw code `-50` [search-order underflow](https://forth-standard.org/standard/exception#table:throw:~:text=search%2Dorder%20underflow).



,------------------------------------------
| 2026-09-12 17:16:11  ruv  replies:
| proposal - New words: latest-name and latest-name-in
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/new-words-latest-name-and-latest-name-in#reply-1759
`------------------------------------------
> ```forth
> : ?nt ( nt|0 -- nt ) \ throws on nt=0
>     dup 0= -80 and throw ;
> ```

In that case, what is the error message?
Note that we already have `?found ( x1\0 -- x1  ^^  0 -- never )`.

> Then the cases where there needs to be a check can have that check, and it's a short word to insert,

This approach is useful when you sometimes need to handle `0` locally, while in other cases you need to throw an exception.
For `latest-name`, there is almost **no use cases** where you need to handle `0` locally (please, provide examples if you have). And in very rare cases where you need to handle `0` locally, I suggest to use another word.

-----

To avoid similarity in names when the stack effect is not similar, I suggest to change the naming as follows:

```
last-name-in ( wid -- nt|0 ) \ It is needed as a basic API method 
last-name ( -- nt|0 )  \ It is very optional, since it is almost not needed in practice
latest-name ( -- nt ) \ It is used in most practical use cases
```

Is it acceptable for you?