Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Russians about standard (survey taken in 2010 ) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:17:37 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 18 Message-ID: <87wpaqlbry.fsf@nightsong.com> References: <81f347ba-7521-4afc-a294-4f7d9f795cac@googlegroups.com> <8e586043-6555-41cc-b301-ecbec6137747@googlegroups.com> <3202a6d0-f528-4538-9260-4cddfd54296e@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0de1f87b5972fac17e91256555e4d05f"; logging-data="15264"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0TVq/Z/2LvN3t67vRIJjm" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:hFiNTSgMztJI3g7TlI+yHicvgqU= sha1:0n4x2jnWbV0m6WZ8D7PuILjvqTY= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:57075 Ilya Tarasov writes: > 'The main result of Standard should be:' I'd add: documenting a shared understanding of how a Forth implementation can be expected to behave. That's a weaker statement than "provide cross-platform capabilities for Forth", but stronger than the Colorforth situation where OR can someitmes mean exclusive or. > 3. Providing a complete guide how to write my own translator - 6 votes That's interesting. Certainly a standard shouldn't be an implementation guide. But a lot of the existing standardized features seem to be provided for the purpose of enabling implementing Forth in Forth. And yet, doing it entirely with Standard words is at best awkward. It would be nice if the next standard could streamline some of that, though it would be helped along by a reference implementation. I imagine something like a slightly expanded version of eForth to include stuff like wordlists.