> > I would argue that since INCLUDE isn't specified (but should
> > be) both REQUIRE and INCLUDE can be specified as desired.
>
> My interpretation is that since the standard does not explicitly
> allow that INCLUDED changes, e.g., BASE, in a standard system
> INCLUDED must leave BASE alone, just like : must leave BASE and
> the search order alone, or like most other words must leave them
> alone.

No - I said INCLUDE - not INCLUDED. Again, this is why wording
like " functionality of <name>" is important. INCLUDE and
REQUIRE are *not* standard words, and consequently my proposed
behaviour is just a matter of opinion until that name is claimed
in a future standard.

> The standard does not allow that INCLUDED does something to the
> dictionary. However, allowing that would simplify the
> implementation of REQUIRED (the filename could be stored in a
> special wordlist), and probably would not break existing
> programs; Win32Forth already does this, and apparently nobody has
> complained about it. So one might consider adding this
> restriction to INCLUDED.

Remove? But then VFX Forth has done this by default since its
introduction and so have other MPE systems before VFX. This
makes VFX Forth non-compliant. Are we going to change it? Not
until someone gives a compelling reason for the change. Non-
compliance is not a compelling reason alone. The rationale
behind the rule may be, if it applies to the system.

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@...
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 23 80 631441, fax: +44 23 80 339691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads