Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions
De : anton (at) *nospam* mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 07. Jun 2025, 10:43:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Message-ID : <2025Jun7.114356@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : xrn 10.11
sean@conman.org writes:
 Why not?  This was a learning experience for me, as this is my first
actual Forth implementation [1].  The ANS Forth 2012 standard gave me a
target to aim for.  Guess I shouldn't have bothered then.

Don't let the usual naysayers discourage you.  You took your choices,
based on reasonable criteria, and you finished what you set out to do.
Great!

The Standard dates backs to 1977 starting out as
a list of words pulled from Kitt Peak Forth.  If KPF didn't have (.) etc well
that was just too bad.  The point being nobody sat down and systematically
designed the standard (or forth) ground up.  It was adhoc.  It's always been
adhoc.  Moore has changed his mind numerous times.  What one sees in the Standard
is a snapshot of 1977.
>
 It seems to have concepts that have occured after 1977, or are you
speaking of some other Forth Standard, like 79 or 83?

The cool thing about dxf is that he always criticizes the standard,
usually for innovations that he denounces as deviations from
traditional Forth values.  Criticizing the standard because of its
ancestry is a new twist in his postings.

Even small forths can do better than what the standard offers by simply factoring
out tools already present e.g.
 
(.)  (D.)  (U.)  /CHAR  >CHAR  >DIGIT  HELD  MU*  MU/MOD  TRIM  UNNEST
 
I'd rather have these than all the support for wordlists DEFER and other stuff
the standard and folks have obsessed over.

That's the more usual stance that dxf takes.

 Can you not implement them with ANS Forth?

He claims that these are already present in existing implementations,
only not standardized.  For (.) (D.) (U.) that's certainly not the
case in Gforth.  As for /CHAR >CHAR >DIGIT HELD MU* MU/MOD TRIM
UNNEST, I don't know what they are supposed to do, so I cannot tell
whether Gforth has some factors that correspond to them.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023 proceedings: http://www.euroforth.org/ef23/papers/
EuroForth 2024 proceedings: http://www.euroforth.org/ef24/papers/

Date Sujet#  Auteur
31 May 25 * THROW codes and ambiguous conditions37dxf
31 May 25 +* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions7Anton Ertl
31 May 25 i+* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions2dxf
3 Jun21:48 ii`- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1sjack
31 May 25 i`* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions4Anton Ertl
1 Jun 25 i `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions3albert
1 Jun 25 i  `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions2Anton Ertl
1 Jun 25 i   `- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1albert
1 Jun 25 `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions29Hans Bezemer
2 Jun 25  +- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1dxf
2 Jun11:44  `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions27albert
3 Jun04:23   `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions26dxf
3 Jun07:10    +* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions22Anton Ertl
4 Jun15:44    i`* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions21dxf
4 Jun20:25    i `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions20sean
5 Jun07:09    i  +- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1dxf
5 Jun11:17    i  `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions18albert
6 Jun01:47    i   +- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1dxf
6 Jun07:15    i   `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions16sean
6 Jun12:00    i    `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions15albert
6 Jun22:06    i     `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions14sean
7 Jun04:10    i      `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions13dxf
7 Jun05:26    i       `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions12sean
7 Jun05:42    i        +- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1dxf
7 Jun10:43    i        +* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions9Anton Ertl
7 Jun15:06    i        i`* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions8dxf
7 Jun20:58    i        i `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions7Paul Rubin
8 Jun02:49    i        i  +* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions3Paul Rubin
8 Jun04:36    i        i  i+- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1dxf
8 Jun09:07    i        i  i`- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1Anton Ertl
8 Jun03:16    i        i  +- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1dxf
8 Jun08:56    i        i  `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions2Anton Ertl
8 Jun15:45    i        i   `- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1dxf
7 Jun15:41    i        `- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1LIT
3 Jun09:43    +- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1John
4 Jun03:03    `* Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions2dxf
6 Jun11:47     `- Re: THROW codes and ambiguous conditions1Hans Bezemer

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal