On 2023-10-24 19:40, albert wrote:
> In article <uh954j$4q87$1@dont-email.me>, Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-10-24 08:37, albert wrote:
>>> It bears repeating:
>>>
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> * Names are SO not determining the identity of a word. *
>>> ***********************************************************
>>
>> I agree. A word name does not identify the word.
>> A name token identifies the word, by its definition:
>>
>> A name token is a single-cell value that identifies a named Forth
>> definition.
>
> Almost correct.
>
> A name token is a single-cell value that identifies a Forth
> definition. Note that it may not have a name.

It depends on how we define what nameless Forth definition is (i.e., a
Forth definition without a name).

I could consider:
A nameless Forth definition is a Forth definition for which the
standard does not require the system to provide a name token.

An example:

:noname 123 . ; ( xt )

For this definition, we only have an execution token. It's unable to
obtain a name token. Then we can say that this definition is a nameless
Forth definition.

>>> I can't getting the point accross.
>>> The problem with LATEST that the obvious solution doesn't work.
>>> The naive solution reading iso93 is returning an xt.
>>> So what thingy is LATEST to return?
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not following you here. I don't see how your question about
>> LATEST is related to my proposal.
>
> The answer is not what it is that is returned. The answer is how it
> should be named:
> Possibly answers:
> A name token
> B dea

The term "name token" is already established.
What do you have against this term?

>
> In any case it must be an answer that identifies a
> word/definition/you-know-what-I-mean.
>

--
Ruvim