Re: single-xt approach in the standard

Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> writes:

Do you think that the Forth standard should recognize the classic
single-xt approach as possible for implementing a standard Forth system?

I think that that's certainly intended at some point by the
standardization committee, and I would support reasonable changes to
the standard to make such systems standard-conforming.  But I think
it's up to the people who have implemented such a system (in
particular, Forth, Inc.)  to propose something reasonable in this
direction.  They have not done so (and there has been ample
opportunity), so they seem to be happy with the current state of
affairs: SwiftForth does not comply with the standard for S" and a
number of other words, but apparently nobody has complained, so they
won't fix these words nor propose changing the standard.

An alternative (and probably less work than changing the standard) is
to fix SwiftForth (e.g., by special-casing the dual-sematics words in
NAME>INTERPRET and NAME>COMPILE), but it's even less work is to let
sleeping dogs lie.

- 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 2024: https://euro.theforth.net