Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #49004

Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention

Show all headers | View raw

krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote:
> HAA writes:
> ...
> > The reason I wouldn't put UD. in the Standard isn't because the name is
> inconsistent with DU< but because it's largely useless.
>
> Your statement is purely based on your experience, and the way in which you use Forth.
> Recently I needed UD. for calculations in the interpreter. Not all computing requires
> formatted output. The fact that several Forth systems have already implemented UD. or
> an equivalent is evidence that your statement is wrong.
>
> Krishna

My statements are based on experience.  Sending ascii data including numbers to a file
is a common task in computing.  No Forth Standard to date has included numeric string
words.  Do I think they have been negligent in that respect?  No, for the reason I previously
gave.  OTOH I would see as puzzling a Forth system that didn't already provide numeric
string functions - because under the classic Forth model the string form is the basis for
the Standard numeric output words.

My observation is systems that provide UD. usually come with other numeric output
functions including string.  For example F83 from the 1980's provides:

    (U.) U. U.R (.) . .R (UD.) UD. UD.R (D.) D. D.R

The system is providing users with a library of output functions which they can access
if/when they need it.  One of the issues with UD. (and D.) is that they're not always
convenient.  If I'm displaying decimal I may want commas after each thousand; if hex
I might want padding with '0's and a point '.' after each four characters.  That's why
I say UD. is not that useful.

I'll leave it there.  There must be others who have a comment.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-02 07:25 -0700
  Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-02 10:01 -0500
  Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention ruvim.pinka@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 12:43 -0700
    Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 01:05 -0400
      Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention ruvim.pinka@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 00:31 -0700
        Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
    Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-05 00:19 +1000
      Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-04 07:37 -0700
        Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-07 13:01 +1000
          Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-09 08:40 -0700
            Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-10 18:23 +1000
              Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-10 08:27 -0700
    Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-04 13:59 +1000
      Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-03 22:42 -0700
    Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-03 21:09 -0700
      Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention ruvim.pinka@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 20:37 -0700
      Re: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention ruvim.pinka@gmail.com - 2016-07-10 21:07 -0700

csiph-web