NieDżejkob's ramblings

Contextful exceptions with Forth metaprogramming

This article is part of the Bootstrapping series, in which I start from a 512-byte seed and try to bootstrap a practical system.

A typical Forth system provides a simple exception handling mechanism, in which a single integer, that identifies the exception, is thrown. If we end up catching the exception, this scheme works reasonably well. However, if it bubbles up to the very top and gets printed to the user, we'd like to show a bit more context.

Systems like Gforth do print the backtrace and map the integer thrown to a textual description (in a manner similar to Unix's errno), but information specific to a particular error is lost. For example, if an I/O error occurs, we'd like to include the underlying error code, the block number, and perhaps some device identifier. If a file couldn't be found, we want its filename. So far, I couldn't find any existing Forth system that solves this.

In this post, I describe Miniforth's solution to this problem. We'll build a simple extension to the throw-and-catch mechanism to allow error messages like:

in-block: 13
error-code: 2
word: has-typpo

The latter example also illustrates why exceptions are on the critical path of the bootstrap — they'll be the mechanism by which the new outer interpreter reports unknown words. Granted, we could hack around this need, but some form of unwinding will be necessary anyway, as the error may occur within a parsing word like ', potentially deep within the user's program.

Older Forth systems used a simpler strategy of aborting into the top-level REPL upon the first error, which entailed clearing the return stack entirely and jumping to the entrypoint of the system. I decided that this simplification is not worth it, as I'll eventually need the full flexibility of exceptions — planning ahead, I'm modeling the eventual text editor after vi, and I'm considering making the commandline bound to : a Forth REPL (with an additional vocabulary activated for the commands specific to editing text). In that case, quitting the editor after the first typo wouldn't be very nice.

The mechanism I describe here is built it on top of the standard catch and throw words, so if you need a refresher on how they behave, or would like to see how they're implemented, see this article of mine.

The design

The mechanism would be most flexible if the user could simply register an arbitrary snippet of code for printing an exception type. However, most of the exceptions wouldn't actually use this flexibility fully. Therefore, the design has two main parts:

  • locating the word that prints a given exception, and
  • syntax for defining a typical printing word easily.

Finding the printing function

Locating the printing handler is a very similar problem to finding a string description, which is something other systems do. As such, we could adapt Gforth's solution, creating a linked list much like the dictionary itself, mapping exception numbers to printing routines:

A linked list with entries consisting of a link field, exception number and the code executed for a given exception.

An explicit mapping like that could indeed be the best way of locating the printing word, if one was looking for compatibility with existing programs throwing integers willy-nilly. However, that is not a goal for Miniforth, which allows a simpler solution — directly throw the pointer to the printing function.

: my-exn ." Hello!" cr ;
' my-exn throw ( prints Hello! )

That way, no extra data structures are necessary, saving both memory and execution time1. Even when you don't want to print the exception, but, for example, check if the exception you've caught is one you want to handle, nothing stopping you from comparing these pointers like opaque tokens.

: print-half ( n -- )
  ['] halve catch case
    0 of ." The half is " . endof
    ['] its-odd of ." It's odd!" endof
    ( default ) throw
  endcase ;

Of course, throwing the execution token like that will explode violently when someone throws a simple integer. If compatibility was desired, the two schemes could be merged somehow. The solution I like the most here is to reserve a single numeric identifier in the traditional system for all "fancy" exceptions, and then store the actual execution token in a variable. In this case a wrapper around throw would be necessary, but we can use this opportunity to merge the ['] into it too:

variable exn-xt
-123 constant exn:fancy
: (throw-fancy) exn-xt ! exn:fancy throw ;
: [throw]  postpone ['] postpone (throw-fancy) ; immediate
( usage: )
: halve dup 1 and if
    [throw] its-odd
  then 2/ ;

Either way, Miniforth settles for directly throwing execution tokens — this alternative could be useful when integrating these ideas into other systems, though.

Defining the exceptions

To make defining the exceptions easier, Miniforth provides this syntax:

  str string-field:
  uint integer-field:
end-exception my-exception

This creates the variables string-field: and integer-field:, and a word my-exception that prints its name and the values of all the fields:

integer-field: 42
string-field: hello

As you can see, the naming convention of ending exception fields with a : also serves to separate names from values when the exception gets printed. While it wouldn't be hard to make the code add a : by itself, I don't think that would be for the better — the naming convention means you don't have to worry about your field names conflicting with other Forth words. For example, the unknown-word exception includes a word: field, but word is already a well-known word that parses a token from the input stream. I must admit that I first considered much more complicated namespacing ideas before realizing that the colon can serve as a naming convention.

Alternative designs

Of course, this is not the only possible way of attaching context. For one, we could change how catch affects the stack, and keep any values describing the exception on the stack, just below the execution token itself. However, throw purposefully resets the stack depth to what it was before catch was called to make stack manipulation possible after an exception gets caught. While you could, instead, keep track of the size of the exception being handled and manage the stack appropriately, I can't imagine that being pleasant.

One could also consider using dynamically allocated exception structures. After all, that's pretty much what higher-level languages do. However, there is no point in holding onto an exception for later, and only one exception is ever being thrown at a given time. I do admit that one could chain exceptions together by having a cause field, like so:

buffer-at: $1400
  block-number: 13
  error-code: $47

Still, a situation where two exceptions of the same type are present in a causal chain is somewhat far-fetched, and, in my opinion, does not justify the increased complexity — making this work would need a dynamic allocator and a destructor mechanism for the exception objects.

In the end, storing context in global variables has a very nice advantage: the context can be speculatively recorded when convenient. This is best illustrated by an example, so let's take a look at must-find, which turns the zero-is-failure interface of find into an exception-oriented one. The implementation stores its input string into word: before calling find, regardless of whether the exception will actually be thrown or not:

: find ( str len -- nt | 0 ) ... ;
: must-find ( str len -- nt ) 2dup word: 2! find
  dup 0= ['] unknown-word and throw ;

If we had to keep it on the stack instead, the code would need a separate code path for the happy case afterwards, to discard the no-longer-needed context:

: must-find ( str len -- nt ) 2dup find
  dup if
    >r 2drop r>
    word: 2! ['] unknown-word throw
  then ;

This strategy does have the caveat that, if you're not careful, a word invoked between storing the context and throwing the exception could overwrite said context, i.e.

: inner  s" its-inner" ctx: 2!  ['] exn maybe-throw ;
: outer  s" its-outer" ctx: 2!  inner  ['] exn maybe-throw ;
( even when outer throws the exception, ctx: contains "its-inner" )

This is not a big issue in practice, though, as most often the definition of the exception and all the words that throw it are directly next to each other, so it's easy to notice if this can happen. I suppose recursion would have the highest chance of triggering this. If this issue occurs in a context other than a recursive word, your exceptions are probably needlessly general anyway, and should be split into more granular types.

The implementation

Okay, so how do we implement this exception...end-exception structure? Most of the work is actually done by end-exception itself. This is because we need to generate the variables with their underlying storage, as well as the code of the printing function of the exception, and we can't do both at once — we'd quickly end up putting a variable's dictionary header in the middle of our code.2

Therefore, the context variables themselves are defined first, and then end-exception walks through the dictionary to process all the variables, after they've been defined.

While traversing the dictionary, we can point at an entry in two places:

Diagram illustrates what is about to be described.

The name token (nt for short) points to the very beginning of the header. This is the value stored in latest and the link fields, and it lets you know as much as the name of the word itself.3 On the other hand, we have an execution token (xt for short), which directly points at the code of a word. This is the value we can pass to execute, compile into a definition with ,, or in general do things where only the behavior matters. Notice that, due to the variable-length name field, we can only turn a name token into an execution token (which is what >xt ( nt -- xt ) does), but not the other way around.

As we need to know when to stop our traversal, exception remembers the value of latest, thus saving the name token of the first word that isn't part of the exception context. Along the same lines as if or begin, we can just put this value on the stack:

: exception ( -- dict-pos ) latest @ ;

end-exception also begins by sampling latest, thus establishing the other end of the range through which we'll be iterating. Then, : is ran to parse the name that comes after end-exception, and create an appropriate word header.

: end-exception ( dict-pos -- ) latest @ :
  ( ... )

One repeating operation the printing word needs to do is printing the name of some word — either the exception name itself, or one of the variables. Let's factor that out into print-name,, which takes a name token, resolves it into a name with >name, and compiles the action of printing this name.

: print-name, ( nt -- )
  >name postpone 2literal postpone type ;

We can then use it to print the name which : just parsed:

: end-exception ( dict-pos -- ) latest @ :
  latest @ print-name,  postpone cr

Here's a diagram that visualizes the points in the dictionary where the various pointers we got so far point to:

The three values read from latest so far point to: the last word defined before the exception, the last field of the exception, and the printing word.

The next step is to iterate over the dictionary and handle all the fields. As you can see from the diagram above, we need to stop iterating once the two pointers become equal, testing before handling each field.

  begin ( end-pos cur-pos ) 2dup <> while
    dup print-field, ( we'll see print-field, later )
    ( follow the link field: ) @
  repeat  2drop

Finally, we finish the printing word with a ;. We need to postpone it, since it would otherwise end the definition of end-exception itself.

  postpone ;

So, how does print-field, work? It first needs to print the name itself, which we can do with print-name,. But how does the value of the field get shown?

Since printing a string is very different from printing a number, the field needs to somehow let us know how to print it. To do so, the exception variables have an extra field in their header that points to a word such as : print-uint @ u. ;.

At first, it might seem like there is no room to extend the header like this, though. We have the link field, then immediately comes the name, and when it ends, there's the code. However, we can put it to the left of the link field:

The print xt is directly to the left of the location the nt points to.

As a side-effect of this layout, we don't actually need to write the entire header ourselves. After our additional field is written, we can just invoke variable or a similar defining word and have it complete the rest:

: print-uint @ u. ; : uint ['] print-uint , variable ;
: print-str 2@ type ; : str ['] print-str , 2variable ;

This is then used by print-field,. For a string variable called word:, it will generate the following code:

s" word:" type space word: print-str cr

Here's how you go about generating that:

: print-field, ( nt -- )
  dup print-name, postpone space
  dup >xt ,                     ( e.g. word: )
  1 cells - @ ,                   ( e.g. print-str )
  postpone cr ;

This concludes the crux of the implementation. The only thing that remains is to put an execute in the exception handling code of the interpreter, which we'll soon do when we pivot into the pure-Forth outer interpreter.

In fact, the code is there already in the GitHub repository, with the code from this article in block14.fth and the new outer interpreter in blocks 20–21. If you want to play around with it, follow the instructions in the README to build a disk image and fire it up in QEMU. Typing 1 load will load, among various other code, the new interpreter and exception handling.

If you like what you see, feel free to adapt this exception mechanism to your Forth system. Though, the code probably won't work exactly as written — after all, I'm making extensive use of the internal details of the dictionary. If I were to write this with a focus on portability, I'd probably end up using a separate linked list to store pairs of (variable_nt, printing_xt) (and words like uint would be extending it).

And even if you're not going to be adding context to your exceptions, I hope you've found this to be an interesting demonstration of Forth's metaprogramming capabilities.

Enjoyed this article?

You might like my other posts, too. If you'd like to be notified of new ones, you can follow me on Twitter or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Thanks to Michał Sidor for supporting my work. Wanna join them?


Though, the time factor probably won't matter — printing exceptions is far from a hot spot.


We could try jumping over these headers, but at that point it doesn't look like it's simplifying anything.


Or rather, even more than what the name itself can tell you, as if a future definition with the same name shadows this one, the name token will still point to the same word.