Path: ...!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: single-xt approach in the standard
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 12:44:03 +0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <vce3sj$3unj9$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vcbn5e$3etuk$1@dont-email.me>
 <d85ac3d9a2e6f7af161993b33b10c890@www.novabbs.com>
 <vcbqvk$3etuk$2@dont-email.me> <vccjfv$3l9rv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 10:44:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2d49625ab619eb4a06b4d5e9f2582f6";
	logging-data="4152937"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gJ+Bb7suOIoryfmPMK0dh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3lv4ymenR0Nxe/z2FJW9Am7gYW8=
In-Reply-To: <vccjfv$3l9rv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3467

On 2024-09-17 22:58, Anthony Howe wrote:
> On 2024-09-17 07:59, Ruvim wrote:
>> On 2024-09-17 15:20, minforth wrote:
>>> I would like to see an "officially recognized" standard reference
>>> system, speed and number of xt's per word are of no importance.
>>>
>>> Are you planning to make one?
>>
>> I think, having the single standard reference implementation is a big 
>> step back in Forth standardization process. Because implementation 
>> details of the particular implementation will be used as requirements.
> 
> I think it should be recognised in some capacity, given Forth's origins, 
> but whether there should be a reference implementation probably not.
> 
> 
>> I think, the standard conformance test suite is enough.
> 
> One would think so, but the test suite is:
> 
> * incomplete
> * as published in draft 19-1 has typos and possible errors
> * test cases often test multiple words at once that have not be tested 
> separately
> * assumes the entire draft with all the optional sets are present, 
> rather than separate the word sets into separate unit tests

There is another testsuite:
https://github.com/gerryjackson/forth2012-test-suite


I have an idea for a testsuite that:
   — is a ready-to-use program;
   — does not use words from optional word sets (for that, all the 
source files are transpiled into a single file that can be passed to stdin);
   — does not change the host Forth system (for example, does not add 
the missed standard words);
   — has an external program that parses output of the testsuite from 
the host's Forth system stdout and generates a report in text/xml/xhtml 
form;
   — includes into the report general information such as implemented 
words and word sets, implementation options (that can be inferred by a 
standard program), the behavior of some words in edge cases, etc., along 
with the lists of passed and failed tests;
   — has a configuration for a number of known systems (that is extended 
by the community);




>> For illustrative purposes, we can have several different 
>> implementations of Forth in Forth.
> 
> If there is reference implementation(s) I think it would be interesting 
> to have two: `single-xt` and `dual-xt` to demonstrate that both models 
> worth and are conforming.
> 

Yes, that would be good.


--
Ruvim