The following Request for Interpretation from Bernd Paysan is recognized
as Q0009.  Loring Craymer has volunteered to draft a TC reponse.
Discussion on x3j14 list please.

- Greg
--------------------------
Bernd Paysan wrote on Tue, 04 Jun 96 07:31:47 PDT  :

> IMHO the confusion about this topic has reached a point where I need an 
> _official_ statement.
> 
> Problem summary: POSTPONE appends compilation semantics to a word. 
> Compilation semantics, reading the words of the standard, is what is 
> done when the text interpreter encounters a word in compilation state. 
> Nothing in the standard prevents you executing words with compilation 
> semantics from POSTPONE in interpretation state (it does not say that it 
> is ambiguous, so it looks like it is defined through the standard).
> 
> Opinions: Elizabeth Rather says that compilation semantics requires to be 
> in compilation state. Anton Ertl says that the standard doesn't say this, 
> and he insists in that POSTPONE allows to use the compilation semantics in 
> interpretation state.
> 
> Conclusion: If Anton is right, it is not allowed to make standard words 
> state smart (state @ IF <compilation semantics> ELSE <interpretation 
> semantics> THEN). While the standard only requires S" (file wordset) and 
> TO to be used in interpretation and compilation state (with special 
> compilation behaviour), it's useful to have other standard words 
> state-smart (e.g. ."), and all these words even cause more problems 
> (POSTPONE TO is undefined, and the standard only seems to have forgotten 
> S").
> 
> Bernd Paysan
> "Late answers are wrong answers!"
> http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~paysan/
> 
> 


    Greg Bailey     |  ATHENA Programming, Inc  |  503-295-7703  |
  ----------------  |  310 SW 4th Ave  Ste 530  |  fax 295-6935  |
  greg@minerva.com  |  Portland, OR  97204  US  |