Re: FP number syntax

On 27/12/2024 10:04 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

In article <2024Dec26.225518@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:

I'm having trouble finding the place in ANS 94[0] or Forth 2012[1] where
any of this is specified.  That surprises me.  Particularly, 3.4.1.3
Text interpreter input number conversion doesn't discuss the matter.

>
<https://forth-standard.org/standard/double#subsection.8.3.1>

 
(In my old '92 copy it is in a subsection of 8.3 )
A forth that interprets e.g. 3.14 as a floating point number
is as non-standard as a Forth that interprets 3.14 is a double.
Think about it!
 
How would a proposal like this fare:
"
    A double number is only recognized as it ends *and starts*
    with a period.
    Recognizing a double if it ends only in a period becomes
    obsolescent.
"
.314.   : double
3.14    : fp
.314E1  : fp

It's not orthodoxy.  Are folks more - or less - likely to go it alone
today than 30 years ago when proposals like this were first made?