Re: single-xt approach in the standard

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: single-xt approach in the standard
De : ruvim.pinka (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ruvim)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 25. Sep 2024, 08:27:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vd0e11$3itr4$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2024-09-23 20:52, Anton Ertl wrote:
Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> writes:
On 2024-09-23 12:36, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
I also wanted to say that there is an opinion that this definition does
not implement `s"` specified in 11.6.1.2165. An interesting question for
those who share this opinion: how can 11.6.1.2165 be changed (if at all)
to allow this implementation?
 The implementation is not in your posting, but I guess you mean a
STATE-smart implementation.  One way to allow a STATE-smart
implementation of S" would be to state something like the following in
the "Interpretation:" section of the glossary entry of 11.6.1.2165:
 An ambiguous condition exists if the interpretation semantics of S" is
performed in other than interpration state.
 Likewise, add the following to the "Compilation:" section:
 An ambiguous condition exists if the compilation semantics of S" is
performed in other than compilation state.
So, according to this approach, in the specification for every unordinary word that is allowed to be implemented as a single-xt or as a dual-xt word, you have to mention these ambiguous conditions.
This would be a poor language for specification such words, I think.
It looks like in this approach, you actually partially specify a behavior for xt1 and partially specify a behavior for xt2, and you also specify in which STATE xt1 shall be executed, and in which STATE xt2 shall be executed. One problem in this approach is that you have to repeat the latter for every such word. And another problem is that you still don't specify how to obtain xt1 and xt2.
A better way is to only specify what behavior shall be exhibit when the Forth text interpreter encounters the word in interpretation state (the (observable) interpretation semantics), and what behavior shall be exhibit when the Forth text interpreter encounters the word in compilation state (the (observable) compilation semantics). And in a *common* part specify once how to perform this or that behavior.
For example, we can say:
Performing the execution semantics of a word in interpretation state shall exhibit the (observable) interpretation semantics of the word.
An ambiguous condition exists if execution semantics for a word are not defined by the standard and the system-dependent execution semantics of the word are performed in compilation state.
An ambiguous condition exists if interpretation semantics for a word are not defined by the standard and the system-dependent execution semantics of the word are performed.
Note. The execution semantics of a word are identified by an execution token that can be obtained using `find` in interpretation state, `search-wordlist`, `name>interpret`, `'`, `[']`.
Note. At the moment, if a Forth system provides some standard word and does not provide an execution token of this word, then the system cannot provide the word `forth-wordlist` (due to 16.6.1.1595).
Concerning performing (observable) compilation semantics — this should be specified in `find`, and `name>compile`.  In `search-wordlist` we should better specify the meaning of the top output value.
--
Ruvim

Date Sujet#  Auteur
17 Sep 24 * single-xt approach in the standard78Ruvim
17 Sep 24 +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard15minforth
17 Sep 24 i`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard14Ruvim
17 Sep 24 i `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard13Anthony Howe
18 Sep 24 i  +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard7dxf
18 Sep 24 i  i`* Standardization process (was: single-xt approach in the standard)6Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i  i `* Re: Standardization process5dxf
18 Sep 24 i  i  +* Re: Standardization process3Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i  i  i`* Re: Standardization process2dxf
18 Sep 24 i  i  i `- Re: Standardization process1Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i  i  `- Re: Standardization process1Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i  `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard5Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i   `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard4Gerry Jackson
19 Sep 24 i    +- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1albert
19 Sep 24 i    `* Standard testsuite (was: single-xt approach in the standard)2Ruvim
19 Sep 24 i     `- Re: Standard testsuite (was: single-xt approach in the standard)1albert
17 Sep 24 +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard46mhx
17 Sep 24 i+* Re: single-xt approach in the standard44Ruvim
17 Sep 24 ii+* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2minforth
17 Sep 24 iii`- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Ruvim
21 Sep 24 ii+* Re: single-xt approach in the standard28dxf
21 Sep 24 iii`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard27Ruvim
22 Sep 24 iii `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard26dxf
22 Sep 24 iii  +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard6Anton Ertl
22 Sep 24 iii  i+- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1albert
23 Sep 24 iii  i`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard4dxf
23 Sep 24 iii  i `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard3Anthony Howe
24 Sep 24 iii  i  +- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1dxf
25 Sep 24 iii  i  `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1dxf
22 Sep 24 iii  `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard19Ruvim
22 Sep 24 iii   +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard5Anton Ertl
22 Sep 24 iii   i`* Semantics as observable behavior (was: single-xt approach in the standard)4Ruvim
22 Sep 24 iii   i `* Re: Semantics as observable behavior (was: single-xt approach in the standard)3Anton Ertl
22 Sep 24 iii   i  `* Re: Semantics as observable behavior2Ruvim
23 Sep 24 iii   i   `- Re: Semantics as observable behavior1Ruvim
22 Sep 24 iii   +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard4albert
22 Sep 24 iii   i`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard3Ruvim
23 Sep 24 iii   i `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2albert
23 Sep 24 iii   i  `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1minforth
23 Sep 24 iii   `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard9dxf
23 Sep 24 iii    `* Standard compliance for systems (was: single-xt approach in the standard)8Ruvim
22 Nov 24 iii     `* Re: Standard compliance for systems7dxf
22 Nov 24 iii      `* Re: Standard compliance for systems6minforth
22 Nov 24 iii       +* Re: Standard compliance for systems3mhx
22 Nov 24 iii       i`* Re: Standard compliance for systems2minforth
22 Nov 24 iii       i `- Re: Standard compliance for systems1mhx
23 Nov 24 iii       `* Re: Standard compliance for systems2dxf
24 Nov 24 iii        `- Re: Standard compliance for systems1dxf
21 Sep 24 ii+* Re: single-xt approach in the standard4Stephen Pelc
21 Sep 24 iii`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard3Ruvim
22 Sep 24 iii `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2Stephen Pelc
22 Sep 24 iii  `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Anton Ertl
22 Sep 24 ii`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard9albert
22 Sep 24 ii `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard8Ruvim
23 Sep 24 ii  `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard7albert
23 Sep 24 ii   +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard3mhx
23 Sep 24 ii   i`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2Anton Ertl
23 Sep 24 ii   i `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1mhx
23 Sep 24 ii   `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard3Ruvim
23 Sep 24 ii    `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2Anton Ertl
25 Sep 24 ii     `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Ruvim
17 Sep 24 i`- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1albert
17 Sep 24 +* Re: single-xt approach in the standard11Anthony Howe
17 Sep 24 i+* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2Anton Ertl
24 Sep 24 ii`- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Anthony Howe
18 Sep 24 i+* Re: single-xt approach in the standard4Stephen Pelc
18 Sep 24 ii`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard3Ruvim
18 Sep 24 ii `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2mhx
19 Sep 24 ii  `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i`* Re: single-xt approach in the standard4Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i +- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Ruvim
18 Sep 24 i `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard2Hans Bezemer
19 Sep 24 i  `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1albert
17 Sep 24 +- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Anton Ertl
18 Sep 24 +- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Ruvim
21 Sep 24 `* Re: single-xt approach in the standard3PMF
22 Sep 24  +- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Anton Ertl
22 Sep 24  `- Re: single-xt approach in the standard1Ruvim

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal