Re: History of CREATE...DOES> ?

On 2/08/2024 5:54 pm, minforth wrote:

There are so many implementation-defined options and ambiguous
conditions in the fp-number standard which altogether leave a
lot of leeway. And f.ex. omission of trailing zeros isn't
specified at all.
 
So what are you missing? It is a playing field _deliberately_
made with few boundaries.

The TC deliberately made the spec ambiguous to allow variations?
Well, they succeeded.  Too bad for anyone attempting to write an
app that works similarly across platforms.

Theoretically one could argue that a reference Forth system
or a specified set ouf fp output formats would be of help.
But nobody cares. Individual narrow interpretations even less.
So what ..

I cared.  The bare-bones tick-the-box implementations I saw in the
early 2000's were no use to me - particularly after seeing what
Fortran and C had to offer.  The closest to a meaningful set of
functions in Forth at the time was Marcel's.  What's regretful is
the BASIS functions (modelled after proven functions from the FVG
FP standard) were near the mark - until the TC chose to ditch it
all for a primitive and PRECISION.  I'm not against PRECISION but
it took some time to work out how to apply it to things like F.