Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!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: Parsing timestamps?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 22:42:48 +1000
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f7323c758e526e73a49658df866a54ed2c18e4f7@i2pn2.org>
References: <1f433fabcb4d053d16cbc098dedc6c370608ac01@i2pn2.org>
 <44b5f13fd49d8ddbd572ae583379d124@www.novabbs.com>
 <21113c70c36a86f0fd4c74c8d11d0947528ba70f@i2pn2.org>
 <20baae7dd561db60967a5937d2b59d9a@www.novabbs.com>
 <0db20ddf954106bbca40d9e83630033f108b9a8e@i2pn2.org>
 <87bjq5yn8i.fsf@nightsong.com> <nnd$6da712e9$10ba1712@89d620b4a5dddb34>
 <8734bfzrdl.fsf@nightsong.com>
 <6dcd99ffba129d06b1f736994363eb87@www.novabbs.com>
 <87y0t7y9bh.fsf@nightsong.com> <2025Jul2.184144@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <nnd$0c25eceb$0958936c@1cbc8f1203ea26d1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 12:42:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3176768"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="XPw7UV90Iy7EOhY4YuUXhpdoEf5Vz7K+BsxA/Cx8bVc";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <nnd$0c25eceb$0958936c@1cbc8f1203ea26d1>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

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.