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


,------------------------------------------
| 2019-09-20 23:23:52  ruv  wrote:
| comment - Unfindable definitions
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/TRAVERSE-WORDLIST#contribution-118
`------------------------------------------
If a definition is available via `TRAVERSE-WORDLIST`, can we say that it is findable in the dictionary?

Perhaps, for clarity, we should mention that unfindable definitions (e.g. not ended, or nameless, or quotations) shall not be available via `TRAVERSE-WORDLIST`. Otherwise, among other issues, `SEARCH-WORDLIST` cannot be correctly implemented via `TRAVERSE-WORDLIST` factor.



,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2019-09-19 01:38:22  ruv  replies:
| comment - Interpretation semantics
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/COMPILEComma#reply-335
`------------------------------------------
A basis for the following statement is unclear:

> Thus the interpretation semantics are left undefined, as `COMPILE,` will not be executed during interpretation. 

#### Why will not `COMPILE,` be executed during interpretation?

A possible explanation is that the author of this statement (and perhaps some other members of the X3J14 Technical Committee) believed that appending semantics to the current definition may take place in compilation state only [1]. In such case `COMPILE,` is allowed to be executed in compilation state only, and therefore both executing in interpretation state and the interpretation semantics are ambiguous for this word. (And in such case even the second example [above](https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/COMPILEComma#contribution-87) would be a non standard code)

It seems this reason is also why we have special `LITERAL` in place of ordinary `LIT,` (and the same for other literals).

Eventually this requirement (appending semantics in compilation state only) was not included into the normative part of the standard, but some shadows remained.

I think, now we can remove "Interpretation:" section of this glossary entry and the statement quoted above.
Perhaps "Interpretation:" section can be also removed for [CS-PICK](https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/CS-PICK), [CS-ROLL](https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/CS-ROLL), [(LOCAL)](https://forth-standard.org/standard/locals/LOCAL) and [Left-bracket](https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/Bracket).

[1] See: [RFI 9, Bernd Paysan on 04 Jun 1996](http://forth.sourceforge.net/standard/dpans/q0009.htm) ([txt](http://forth.sourceforge.net/standard/dpans/q0009.txt))