Re: Parsing timestamps?

Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:

1. Adding general locals is trivial. It takes just one single line of
Forth. Sure, you don't got the badly designed and much too heavy
Forth-2012 implementation,

There is no Forth-2012 implementation of locals.  The proposal
includes a referece implementation, but that is based on a
non-standard word BUILDLV and is therefore not included in
<http://www.forth200x.org/reference-implementations/>; instead, you
find there two implementations written in Forth-94:

http://www.forth200x.org/reference-implementations/locals.fs
http://www.forth200x.org/reference-implementations/extended-locals.fs

Of these two the locals.fs implementation is the shorter and nicer
one.  You can read about these two implementations in
<2021Mar3.171350@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>.

However, looking at
<https://forth-standard.org/standard/locals/bColon>, it seems that the
editor included a variation of extensed-locals.fs.

4tH v3.64.2 will even support a *MUCH* lighter, but
fully conformant Forth-2012 LOCALS implementation.

Great!  How good that Forth-2012 is not an implementation standard.

If anything, yours is a prime
example of a "sour grape argument".

Which grapes do you suppose that I am unable to reach?

- 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/