Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 2024-09-17 07:59, Ruvim wrote:

On 2024-09-17 15:20, minforth wrote:

I would like to see an "officially recognized" standard reference
system, speed and number of xt's per word are of no importance.
>
Are you planning to make one?

 I think, having the single standard reference implementation is a big step back in Forth standardization process. Because implementation details of the particular implementation will be used as requirements.

I think it should be recognised in some capacity, given Forth's origins, but whether there should be a reference implementation probably not.

I think, the standard conformance test suite is enough.

One would think so, but the test suite is:
* incomplete
* as published in draft 19-1 has typos and possible errors
* test cases often test multiple words at once that have not be tested separately
* assumes the entire draft with all the optional sets are present, rather than separate the word sets into separate unit tests

For illustrative purposes, we can have several different implementations of Forth in Forth.

If there is reference implementation(s) I think it would be interesting to have two: `single-xt` and `dual-xt` to demonstrate that both models worth and are conforming.
--
Anthony C Howe
achowe@snert.com                                   BarricadeMX & Milters
http://nanozen.snert.com/                          http://software.snert.com/