Re: "The Best Programming Language for the End of the World"

mhx@iae.nl (mhx) writes:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 21:59:21 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:

[...]

Your example
>

100_000_000_000 20_000_000_000 + . \ outputs 120000000000

>
is not very appetizing because it combines a useful concept
(allowing a visual cue in number I/O) with the need to
redefine many standard words.

You find the change in Gforth in
<http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gforth.git/commit/?id=13a9bb946e1375865c874c73dc51aae8b779216b>.
It introduces a new non-standard word ">number_" and changes two calls
of ">number" into ">number_" in the non-standard word "s>unumber?".
This means that uses of >NUMBER in user programs do not ignore _,
which one may find desirable or not.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023 proceedings: http://www.euroforth.org/ef23/papers/
EuroForth 2024 proceedings: http://www.euroforth.org/ef24/papers/