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: <1a3ebf77c1ed8926d455a268e1309fe0@www.novabbs.com> <66ee34a2$1@news.ausics.net> Content-Language: en-GB From: dxf In-Reply-To: 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.