SWPadnnos is correct. The only "work around" is to use a numbered o-word.
Adding string variables would be considerable effort for relatively
little payback.
Ken
Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> Alan Condit wrote:
>
>
>> I think that I may have found a bug in the interpreter (at the very
>> l
Alan Condit wrote:
>I think that I may have found a bug in the interpreter (at the very
>least a problem).
>
>This call works to call (indirect) o600 from within o
>o call [600] [-0.1161] [-0.0062]
>However, if you change to named o-words, then this call reports a bad
>number format (since it
Additional clarification (example of calling indirect).
I think that I may have found a bug in the interpreter (at the very
least a problem).
Where o has the following lines in it:
o sub
(...)
o[#1] CALL [#2] [#3] [#4] [#5] [#6] [#7] ( Call routine
referenced by #1 )
(...)
o endsub
I think that I may have found a bug in the interpreter (at the very
least a problem).
This call works to call (indirect) o600 from within o
o call [600] [-0.1161] [-0.0062]
However, if you change to named o-words, then this call reports a bad
number format (since it is not a number but the nam
