Re: Parsing timestamps?

On 3/07/2025 8:09 am, Hans Bezemer wrote:

On 02-07-2025 18:41, Anton Ertl wrote:

Those who have a Forth system that implements locals don't object to
the use of locals, those whose Forth system does not implement them,
do.  Looks like the objections are sour-grapes arguments.

 Oooh - I've seen a *LOT* of bad and ill-informed arguments on c.l.f. but this most certainly makes the top 10! :)
 
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, but it works just as well. It also proves that IF Chuck had wanted locals, that it would be a trivial addition.
 
2. It also means the resistance is *NOT* due to the difficulty of implementation. 4tH v3.64.2 will even support a *MUCH* lighter, but fully conformant Forth-2012 LOCALS implementation. And if I can do it, so can others I suppose (Forth-2012 or not). So that argument is moot.
 
3. "Looks like the objections are sour-grapes arguments." No, I have given far more arguments than you have. I'm not gonna repeat them in a forum that has already archived them. If anything, yours is a prime example of a "sour grape argument".
 
Your turn!

Ask Google.  Enter 'Forth and locals' with AI enabled.  It pretty much tells
you locals are ok.  How does Google know?  Well, it mentions Gforth :)

FWIW DX-Forth comes with locals.  It was made it as fast as possible for
the express purpose of letting users compare.