Re: RfD: Forth 200x structures version 4

On Mar 31, 3:22 am, "Ed" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. The names BEGIN / END-STRUCTURE +FIELD were
presumably chosen to avoid conflict with other structure packages.

Not all name conflicts need to be resolved. Structure packages
are often supplied in source form, allowing applications to load
them on demand. Naming isn't an issue because the application
always overloads the appropriate package.

However, if these words are used to implement one of
those common structure packages, it is handy when the
support word does not have name conflicts with the
package it is being used to define.

And if I understood it correctly, the proposed Forth200x
structures at one and the same time provide a minimalist
structure package, names reserved for what will be common
additions if you use it as a structure package, and
allows implementations to efficiently support a range of
more full-featured structure packages.


.