Re: Standard compliance for systems

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl forth 
Sujet : Re: Standard compliance for systems
De : minforth (at) *nospam* gmx.net (minforth)
Groupes : comp.lang.forth
Date : 22. Nov 2024, 14:11:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : novaBBS
Message-ID : <4f7bc02e59ac1d4bd76fbff37a26652b@www.novabbs.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:35:01 +0000, mhx wrote:
When parsing commands for my engineering tools, strings
are indispensable. But I use a ringbuffer, not a stack.
A ring buffer for holding strings is a classic for Forth
systems. For larger string sequences, such as data in XML
format, ring buffers tend to be overwritten. But that's
an application-sprecific implementation detail, not a
topic for a standard.

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