In article <1042s2o$3d58h$[email protected]>,
Ruvim <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2025-06-24 01:03, minforth wrote:
[...]

For me, the small syntax extension is a convenience when working
with longer definitions. A bit contrived (:= synonym for TO):

: SOME-APP { a f: b c | temp == n: flag z: freq }
\ inputs: integer a, floats b c
\ uninitialized: float temp
\ outputs: integer flag, complex freq
 <: FUNC < ... calc function ... > ;>

BTW, why do you prefer the special syntax `<: ... ;>`
over an extension to the existing words `:` and `;`

: SOME-APP
[ : FUNC < ... calc function ... > ; ]
< ... >
;

In this approach the word `:` knows that it's a nested definition and
behaves accordingly.

Or it has not even know it, if [ is smart enough to compile a jump to
after ]. (That was the idea of the 4 brackets of the apocalypse.)
The advantage that you need not modify any defining word.

Ruvim

--
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)