Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Peter Knaggs" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Which standard? Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:10:22 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <30794f7f396fa9ad7ec52f034288c527@dizum.com> <4f6e69ee$0$6866$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <2012Mar26.110424@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <15900200.269.1332786012139.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbgx21> <2012Mar27.135929@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <26568188.1413.1332851163978.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynaz5> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5p5RG50Uq/rtZFRDyGJ+9Q"; logging-data="9732"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XqRtVE5fOyN8uUZo8xIJj" User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.61 (Win32) Cancel-Lock: sha1:nmE3O/qbpEb04tvz57wj5xT72to= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:10635 Helmar Wodtke wrote: > > I'd personally use "-1 XOR". This assumes two=E2=80=99s complement, Forth 94 supports one=E2=80=99s c= omplement, two=E2=80=99s = complement and sign-magnitude. > As there is a big ambiguous thing behind "NOT", I'd personally prefer = = > people implement it in front of their source if they need it ;) This is exactly why Forth 94 did not define NOT, allowing developers to = = define it as they preferred. -- = Peter Knaggs