Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 2024-09-17 22:58, Anthony Howe wrote:

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

There is another testsuite:
https://github.com/gerryjackson/forth2012-test-suite
I have an idea for a testsuite that:
   — is a ready-to-use program;
   — does not use words from optional word sets (for that, all the source files are transpiled into a single file that can be passed to stdin);
   — does not change the host Forth system (for example, does not add the missed standard words);
   — has an external program that parses output of the testsuite from the host's Forth system stdout and generates a report in text/xml/xhtml form;
   — includes into the report general information such as implemented words and word sets, implementation options (that can be inferred by a standard program), the behavior of some words in edge cases, etc., along with the lists of passed and failed tests;
   — has a configuration for a number of known systems (that is extended by the community);

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.
 

Yes, that would be good.
--
Ruvim