Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: FP number syntax
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 10:43:32 +1100
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <17fb9e2e69dd15ea9d7611988c801c9666272ba8@i2pn2.org>
References: <f3d930ef062d020cd12825545af27eb8cccf9160@i2pn2.org>
 <372725cbde75de8c5e4f86e726b42d159b3bba93@i2pn2.org>
 <87zfkinuvb.fsf@nightsong.com> <2024Dec26.225518@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <nnd$7b4b1b29$728c5657@3874e5d0bc8f1da0>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 23:43:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="773168"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="XPw7UV90Iy7EOhY4YuUXhpdoEf5Vz7K+BsxA/Cx8bVc";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <nnd$7b4b1b29$728c5657@3874e5d0bc8f1da0>
Content-Language: en-GB

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?