Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 23/09/2024 2:57 am, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-09-22 06:15, dxf wrote:

...
Same for the items I listed.

 
It is not the same.
 
1) A separate fp stack makes programs far simpler comparing with programs that comply the fp stack is separate or united with the data stack, and moderately simpler than the programs with the environmental dependency that the floating-point numbers are kept on the data stack.
 
NB: Keeping floating-point numbers on the data stack does not make a Forth system non-standard, but it merely adds an environmental restriction to this system, see the section "12.4.1.4 Environmental restrictions" in Forth-2012.

I hadn't seen that.  Forth-94 stated floating-point stack was "the default".
If the only change is that the latter is clarified, then no harm done.
Implementing separate stack on an 8-bit cpu would be expensive and a
performance killer.  As to being "far simpler" to program, similar appeals
are made in respect of locals.  I make it a point to program as if I had a
unified stack just to see if the claim is true.

2) Quote-delimited character interpretation ('A') makes programs simpler, this seems obvious.

Only thing obvious is it's an import from other languages and redundant.
Forth Inc stated they didn't agree with it but eventually provided it.

3) Two buffers for interpretive `s"` makes debugging simpler, because you can test words like `rename-file` interactively, see "A.17.3.4 Other transient regions" in Forth-2012.

I have  >PAD ( adr u -- adr2 u )  for that.  Uses existing resources and is
more flexible.

The real question is what major system still uses
single-xt and would object were it excluded.
>

 
It is not only the implementers of major systems who are allowed to object.

Only ones in a position to mount a challenge.