Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Paul E Bennett Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Making Forth official Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:49:12 +0000 Organization: Hidecs Consultancy Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: <528e0962$0$26909$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> <2013Nov21.145702@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: individual.net NifBXYx2zrfx/7E2rSl0tQ8BDdQYqmxdZ6u2NV7POT7Vb89UxC Cancel-Lock: sha1:A1lxSRPLu5b9E8A2D33x6JKyxOs= User-Agent: KNode/4.10.5 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:26896 Anton Ertl wrote: > albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >>This is a list of language supported by ctags: >>Note how obscure some languages are, and that Forth is missing. > > Gforth contains tags.fs for generating vi tags files (and etags.fs for > generating Emacs TAGS files); these programs use the Forth system, > which allows to support user-defined defining words automatically, > which Forth modes for ctags and etags cannot do easily; the drawback > of this method is that the Forth program must be compilable. > > In any case, we don't use ctags for generating tags files, so it's no > wonder that ctags does not know about Forth. > >>No file extension related to the language Forth is known to `make' rules >>either. > > What kind of rules do you imagine make to use for Forth source files? > > I don't define pattern rules involving Forth source files in my own > Makefiles, so I certainly don't expect any standard pattern rules for > Forth. > >>1. Add Forth language detection to ctags on the .frt extensions. >>(ctags is flexible, you can remap to other extensions if you're happy >>with using ctags, but want to used .fs). >>With this added to virtually all editors, .frt will become the >>de facto extension for Forth source files under Linux which is >>important since Linux has attained world domination. > > Given that .fs is the standard extension for source files in Gforth, I > have my doubts about > >>2. With the leverage resulting from 1, I'm gonna claim the >>extension .frt also in the makefile system. >>A .frt file is turned into an executable by the rule >>-------- >>%: %.frt >># commands to execute (built-in): >> $(FORTH) -c $^ >>-------- > > In Gforth, the undocumented -c option is an alias for > --clear-dictionary (by default, the dictionary is not initialized). > It certainly does not generate a file x from x.frt. IYO what should x > contain? > >>This is just standardizing the ciforth way of making an executable. >>This will promote lina. > > Ah, ok, world domination for lina. > > - anton As one who uses the .fth extension for Forth Source files and usually the Kwrite Editor on a linux System, I would vote for the .fth etension to be included. Kwrite actually manages to do some interesting highlighting with the source code without having to be told about it. None of the highlighting effects affect the source code delivered to VfXForth. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET..... Forth based HIDECS Consultancy............. Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979 Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk.. ********************************************************************