Re: Standard compliance for systems

On 24/11/2024 12:09 am, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <8b00c0b3ab87b7154adc00d7fe89bde6817367b5@i2pn2.org>,
dxf  <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 22/11/2024 9:11 pm, minforth wrote:

Must be bad weather and boring where you live. ;-)

>
You're welcome :)
>

If you have a lot of strings to juggle, treat yourself
to a string stack. Forth is all about flexibility, right?

>
A relative never cleaned their email inbox.  For the last
month any message sent bounced with 'mailbox full'.  Their
solution was to pay for a bigger inbox.

 
If you set aside 1 Gbyte of a 8 Gbyte for a circular string
stack, why don't you do like me? Permanently allocate all
strings in the dictionary. This is a so called memory leak,
but this is not so bad compared to wasting 1 Gbyte up front.
Works well together with MARKER, I'd see better than a circular
string set.

For systems that use a circular buffer to store temporary strings
the size is typically 1 or 2 Kb.  That's reflected in the rather
vague spec for S" .  AFAICS the 2012 decision was more about
implementing common practice than needing common practice.  IMO
Forth-94 got the balance right for both S" and floating point stack.