Re: ffl improvements

In article <2024Dec12.094531@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

You can test gforth easily because there is a separate debian package
to attach the ffl library.

>
Which one?

Who cares. There is a separate package to make it easier to run
ffl in gforth. If I test ffl in gforth that passes.
It is the only test of ffl to pass, so kudos.
It is no use for me, because it doesn't exercise my changes.

>

/usr/share/gforth/site-forth/ffl/str.fs:309: Undefined word

>
The site-forth directory is to allow site administrators to put in
Forth files.  The Debian packager could put in files in the Debian
package nevertheless, but certainly in the gforth-0.7.3 package that
came with Debian 11 and Debian 12, the only file in site-forth is an
empty siteinit.fs.
>
My guess is that you installed the ffl at site-forth at some point,
which is the intended use for site-forth, but probably does not work
so well with the way that Debian packages are installed.

It does work!
I can retest ffl gforth after uninstalling that extra debian package,
site-forth/ffl. I am pretty sure that I do not consciously install that.

But remember. I have no interest in running the ffl, less so with gforth.
I want to test the ffl stuff after a trivial change (include  --> INCLUDE)
Out of an abundance of prejudice, I tried a test with at least
one other Forth, and it fails.

I think my effort is better spent contributing to Forth.works.project
where a lot of library stuff is going.

>

So I push them to https://github.com/uho/ffl
and hope it is accepted.

>
Ulrich Hoffmann is not the maintainer of the ffl AFAIK, so I would not
expect him to accept the pull request.

My bad. He is the owner, he cloned it, but he has no interest in it?

The github repo of the
original author is <https://github.com/irdvo/ffl>, but that says:
>
| This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 26, 2021. It is
| now read-only.
>
which explains why you cannot submit pull requests to that.

And I didn't even try that. I have read that message too.

lso of
interest: <https://github.com/irdvo/ffl/issues/10>, where irdvo
writes:
>
|I lost my interest in forth.
|If you wish, you can fork the project and continue the development.
>
I don't know if anyone has picked up the baton.  If not, maybe you
want to.

Certainly not! If ffl is an ongoing concern I am interested in
contributing a ciforth version.

The question remains. Why has Ullrich forked the archive if he
is not planning to do anything with it.

>

This git stuff apparently doesn't work this way. You must do a
pull request in git. Graphics interface, user friendly, just fill in
the form ...  No way.

>
github is not git.  In particular, git has no pull requests, no
issues, no web interface, nor lots of other github features, and is
not owned by Microsoft.
>
With git (and github), you can push to a repo if you have write access
to it.  But repo maintainers don't give out write access easily, so
the usual way with github and similar services is to fork the repo on
github, push the changes to the forked repo, and then send a pull
request (aka merge request in gitlab) to the original repo; the
maintainer can then accept that or reject it.

Okay, I pass, too much work. Instead I'm going to work with the Chinese
ecosystem of free software.

Has anybody succeeded in doing a contribution to git, other than
to your own archive?

>
I have submitted
<https://github.com/blackducksoftware/ohcount/pull/44>, and it was
eventually accepted.

At least that has convinced me that pull request is not an urban myth.

My initial prejudice with ffl is confirmed.

>
- anton

Groetjes Albert
--
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.