Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: 0 SET-ORDER why?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:51:47 +0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <v5m13j$3811n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5fjkr$1p13i$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Jun26.094910@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <667bd654$1@news.ausics.net>
 <v5h5h6$2565d$1@dont-email.me> <667cda36$1@news.ausics.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:51:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2dcf89b451b7a80f31158b00b8413cf7";
	logging-data="3408951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Y/c1lVFJ+lNO5bdrcGOcC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GPm83RPiF1AlyaHMNf0m/jyb4eo=
In-Reply-To: <667cda36$1@news.ausics.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2490

On 2024-06-27 07:19, dxf wrote:
> On 26/06/2024 11:36 pm, Ruvim wrote:
>> On 2024-06-26 12:50, dxf wrote:
>>> ...
>>> So after all that you don't have an explanation either?  You implemented
>>> it as instructed in the event someone finds a use.
>>
>>
>> I think, in this case it's better to specify behavior than to declare an ambiguous condition.
> 
> No need to specify useless behaviours.

Even behavior that is useless in practice should be sometimes specified 
to ensure *consistency* and expected effects.

BTW, do you think 0 PICK and 0 ROLL are useless?


> u=0 in REPRESENT wasn't specified as
> the TC couldn't imagine a use for it.

<https://forth-standard.org/standard/float/REPRESENT>

Of course, it's specified. It's specified for any u, including 0.
For example:
   "The character string shall consist of the u most significant digits"

If u is zero, the string must consist of zero digits.

Gforth throws exception  -262, but is should not.
sp-forth/4 handles this case correctly.

Probably, "represent" may return false at the top if u is zero.


> Which was just as well as there was
> a use for it the TC apparently overlooked.

What is the problem anyway that the behavior is specified for
"0 SET-ORDER"?  What are bad consequences for systems or for users?


--
Ruvim