Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: single-xt approach in the standard
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 23:18:00 +0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vcn658$1n5o7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vcbn5e$3etuk$1@dont-email.me>
 <1a3ebf77c1ed8926d455a268e1309fe0@www.novabbs.com>
 <vcbuog$3etuk$3@dont-email.me> <vcmm9q$1kpbh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 21:18:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9fe877d33722796c19a8e0356513a97d";
	logging-data="1808135"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wLACvuPTt4RvQM5Ezbi0i"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/QxAib9SZC5U5Xdm69MYfG2oU2I=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vcmm9q$1kpbh$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3024

On 2024-09-21 18:47, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2024 at 15:04:16 CEST, "Ruvim" <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> 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.
> 
> The problem with definitions such as yours above is that they attempt to
> solve the problem of words with "non-default compilation semantics"
> (NDCS) using both immediacy and state-smart techniques.

Why is this a problem? They were implemented only in this way before 
cmForth (AFAIK).


> There is nothing in the standard that says it has to be done that way.

Yes. It may be done in this way, as well as in other way.

Actually, the Forth-94 standard was intended to cover the classic 
single-xt systems and cmForth. No other approaches were in use in 1993 
(to my knowledge).


> The trouble is that the standard provides no tools to implement such
> words. We (MPE) provide such tools in VFX Forth 64, which comes
> with full source code.


> If the standard removes the entitlement to have words such as S" a
> significant portion of implementors will just ignore the standard, so reducing
> its usefulness.

Agreed.


> I suspect that some members of the TC only talk to each other, and have
> little or no contact with people who disagree with them on fundamental
> issues.

What are the particular fundamental issues?  And where can these people 
be heard?


--
Ruvim