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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #44099

Re: D>F and S>F second draft

Show all headers | View raw

HAA wrote:
> Bernd has likened those who disagree with your proposal as trolls who
> need clubbing.

No, that was related to you saying he did not respond to you.  In a 
newsgroup you can chose to ignore people who you think are trolls, and I 
said there's no duty to club them down.  That means: anybody is allowed to 
respond to perceived trolls by ignoring them.

So if you feel being ignored, it's maybe that you raise too many troll 
alerts; that's what I wanted to say.  But given your other argumentation, 
such complicated conversation requiring humor and knowledge of Usenet 
culture wasn't a good idea.

> On the contrary I provide it because Forth deserves
> respect.  If a proposal limits the options available to systems with no
> demonstrable advantage, then it should properly be rejected.

The advantage is for the programmer, who now can depend on a particular 
popular behavior, as opposed to an ambiguous condition, which can do 
anything, and therefore makes all programs that might trigger that condition 
(which depends on the actual precision of floating point use) non-portable.  
When some particular behavior is very popular, it's very difficult to test 
against different implementations (they are rare and hard to come by), and 
the popularity itself tells you that this is "common practice".  A standard 
body should identify common practice, and codify it.  This is of course 
always at the cost of unommon practice, which still may exist - a consensus 
doesn't need to be 100%, 90% is good enough.

And, if your program needs a checking version (you really want it that way), 
you can actually implement that portably with the proposal.  As system 
implementer, you can still provide a performance-optimized checking version, 
e.g. under a different name.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

Thread

RfD: D>F and S>F second draft C G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2015-11-29 17:19 -0500
  Re: D>F and S>F second draft "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-06 13:02 +1100
    Re: D>F and S>F second draft Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-06 03:28 +0100
      Re: D>F and S>F second draft "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-06 04:01 -0500
    Re: D>F and S>F second draft Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-06 02:27 +0000
      Re: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:55 -0800
  RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 10:18 -0800
    RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 10:55 -0800
      Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-06 09:31 -1000
        Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-06 11:48 -0800
          Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:15 -0800
            Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-06 14:57 -1000
        Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-06 12:07 -0800
          Re: RfD: D>F and S>F second draft C G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2015-12-06 20:04 -0500

csiph-web