Loops, and the scripting language is a language

while and for. Both only mean anything in a script, because a loop goes back to
the line that opened it and a prompt has no line to go back to - and both say so
rather than doing something surprising.

THE SCRIPT READER KEEPS THE POSITION OF EVERY LINE before reading it, which is
what makes any of this possible: by the time a line has been read the reader is
past it, and a line is not a fixed size to subtract. Three words per line, and
the block is read again on the way back so the pointer into it means what it
meant - the same thing nesting one script inside another already did, for a
different reason.

THE TWO LOOPS END DIFFERENTLY, and that is the design rather than an accident. A
while is taken away at its end and its own line asks the question again, so
nothing has to be remembered. A for is not: how many words it has used is kept
in the block, and its line reads itself again and counts one more off the front.
That is a byte in a block instead of a copy of the word list in every one of
them.

Blocks grew from a byte to a record of sixteen - state, kind, words used, and
where the line that opened it was - and sixteen because A and B are a shift
register, so four rotations turn a block number into its offset. The history and
the variables are addressed the same way for the same reason.

Nested loops, an if inside a loop, a loop inside a branch nobody takes, and a for
with no words: the last two run no times rather than once, which is the case
worth having a test for.

Three things found by running it:

textSame asks whether two WHOLE strings are the same, so "in red green blue" is
not "in". The word has to be split off before it is compared.

A for typed at a prompt complained about while, because both arrive at the same
place. One message that names neither is better than one that names the wrong
one.

And docs.sh caught a naming convention nobody had written down: it recognises a
packed name by its label ending in "Name", so ForName2 was silently not counted.
It failed the right way round - saying the run was shorter than the count claims
rather than passing - but the convention now lives where the names are and not
only in the checker.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW

Tests/expected/cosmosMonitorRun.out

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ Mode.sbx                48
 Crash.sbx               632
 vars.script             50
 blocks.script           343
+loops.script            272
 tune.sbx                306
 notes.txt               21
 Apps                    <dir>
@@ -38,7 +39,7 @@ nonl.script             38
 outer.script            376
 inner.script            44
 loop.script             35
-23 files, 1 directory
+24 files, 1 directory
 > exit
 halted
 Execution halted.