Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:15:35 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: single-xt approach in the standard
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
References: <vcbn5e$3etuk$1@dont-email.me>
 <1a3ebf77c1ed8926d455a268e1309fe0@www.novabbs.com>
 <vcbuog$3etuk$3@dont-email.me> <66ee34a2$1@news.ausics.net>
 <vcmbf2$1ifml$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
From: dxf <dxforth@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <vcmbf2$1ifml$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net
Message-ID: <66ef7dc7$1@news.ausics.net>
Organization: Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net
Lines: 50
X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail
Bytes: 3061

On 21/09/2024 9:42 pm, Ruvim wrote:
> On 2024-09-21 06:51, dxf wrote:
>> On 17/09/2024 11:04 pm, Ruvim wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a point of view (which I don't share) that it is impossible to implement the standard word `s"` (from the File word set) in a standard *program*. I.e., that the following definition for `s"` is not standard compliant:
>>>
>>>    : s" ( "ccc" -- sd | )
>>>      [char] " parse
>>>      state @ if postpone sliteral exit then
>>>      dup >r allocate throw tuck r@ move r>
>>>    ; immediate
>>>
>>> This effectively means that the classic single-xt approach is impossible for a standard system.
>>
>> Forth-94 section A.1.2 indicates the X3J14 Technical Committee were guided by
>> several considerations including:
>>
>>   "Cost of compliance
>>    This goal includes such issues as common practice, how much existing code
>>    would be broken by the proposed change, and the amount of effort required to
>>    bring existing applications and systems into conformity with the Standard.
>>
>>    Utility
>>    Be judged to have sufficiently essential functionality and frequency of use
>>    to be deemed suitable for inclusion."
>>
>> As 200x has since sought fit to require:
>>
>> - a separate fp stack
>> - quote-delimited character interpretation ('A')
>> - S" support two interpretive buffers
> 
> This does not exclude the classic single-xt approach.
> 
> Do you mean that these points do not meet the "Cost of Compliance" and "Usefulness" considerations?
 
IMO small systems are better off with Forth-94.  And if they're doing that
they'll be free to implement things actually useful to them as the pressure
to conform has passed.

>> nobody that has complied should be worried about excluding systems that use a
>> state-smart S" .
> 
> I do not understand how this follows from the above. My system complies with the above points, and it is a single-xt system. Why I should not be worried?
> 
> Moreover, excluding the single-xt approach does *nothing* useful for programs.

Same for the items I listed.  The real question is what major system still uses
single-xt and would object were it excluded.