Bushmills

@ruv, thank you for your thoughts on standards compliance. This is valuable and very much appreciated input! Renaming `parse` to `parse$` makes entirely sense, and I will follow that suggestion....

Just another quick additon on the `abort` issue: yoda error handling hasn't been finalized: for proper error handling I want real warm start capability - which I haven't at this...

Valid points you have there, @MitchBradley. You guys make so much sense here.

I've followed your valuable suggestions re word naming, and made `compiled` from `immediate`. For consistency, former - misnomer - `interactive` is now `interpreted`. Thank you!

As my use of yoda is in parts also as experimentation vehicle, here's one of the observations gained from it, which may be worthy of consideration in other Forths and...

Hi Paul, No, not really. Separating heads is what I tend to do in about any of my Forths already anyway. With Forths written in such interpreted and scripting kind...

yoda is a spin-off of another experimentation platform, which was mostly used for testing ways to do constant expression folding, which is why words weren't compiled incrementally, but code -...

@ruv, what are your experiences with this approach of reversing the order of compilation and header creation? Any problem points you have encountered as far? My biggest issue with this...

"It looks like Forth in Bash is not about efficient at all ;)" - The more the reason to not substantially slow it down even more if it can be...

>Then probably the line number should be taken just before start compilation of the definition. Something similar I'm now doing - defining words inject another pseudo op into instruction stream,...