I noticed on the Forth standard website when testing DOES>, there were no tests of nested CREATE DOES>. Something similar might be useful in an object oriented package for Forth. Here is a test I came up with for nested CREATE DOES>.

And here is the result

And an examination of the parameter fields.

I'd like to hear about difficulties implementing CREATE DOES> , what situation caused it to fail, so those of us writing our own Forths can more thoroughly test our implementations of CREATE DOES>.

Cheers,
Jim

I'm glad somebody is trying to get this test, the whole concept makes my brain explode. I know that https://forth-standard.org/ allows comments and discussions, have you considered posting it there for feedback?

I had to go through that when I did my '816 Forth, but it has been many years so I'll have to review it when I get time. The way I originally did it turned out to have a problem, so I had to put some more brain power into it. I believe the 2nd time was a charm, but I don't remember much about it. There's also ;code, and does (a runtime routine).

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

I like it. My runtime routine for DOES> and ;CODE is named (;CODE) but I like DOES , it's a smaller name, and I may just rename mine.

The 6502 Forth I got started on used lower-case for the internals, and I have stuck with that. So for example, DO compiles do, LOOP compiles loop, IF compiles 0branch, etc.. It's shorter than (do), (loop), etc.. which I think fig-Forth does, and if you want to put it in a comment marked out by parentheses, you can, without ending the comment prematurely.

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

It really makes you appreciate what Charles Moore accomplished.

Sadly, the Commodore 64 uses PETSCII and it doesn't have a caps lock key, it has a shift lock key.

Regrettably, I cannot relate any difficulties I had because the first time I wrote a Forth for the C64, the only Forth I've written, was in the mid 1990's and I have no records ( notes or source code ) from that time.

The following should also work under Forth-83 and ANSForth. Edited so the computer's responses are in curly braces.

For my (still unfinished) xForth for the X16, which supports both ASCII and PETSCII, I use upper case ASCII for the Forth words, which is still upper case in PETSCII graphics and is lower case in PETSCII upper/lower case. In that context, lower case for the internals would drive me around the bend, since it would be EXTERNALNAME internalname in ASCII mode and externalname INTERNALNAME in PETSCII upper/lower case and EXTERNALNAME <petsciigraphicstring> in PETSCII graphics mode.

At one time I must have come across a Forth that uses DO<name> for internals, since that I what I mostly have ... DOLOOP DOLIT etc. ... but one of the conventions I might use to save a scattered byte here or there is to use the leading underscore for the internals ... _LOOP _LIT etc.

In PETSCII, that underscore character is a right pointing arrow, which kind of works.