Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50983
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Standard or Forth? |
| Date | 2016-09-15 13:38 +1000 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nrd531$1106$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <npkec6$gnu$1@dont-email.me> <877falllrg.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> <nr5kmh$1qb8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <2016Sep12.185924@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
Anton Ertl wrote:
> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
> >Since when are five words to handle defers traditional?
>
> Traditional are DEFER and IS. Traditionally, carnal knowledge was
> used when people wanted to do the things that Forth-2012 programs can
> do with DEFER@ and DEFER!, but since we did not want to standardize
> (uncarnalize) the carnal knowledge, we standardized DEFER@ and DEFER!.
> Finally, someone wanted ACTION-OF as a parsing variant of DEFER@ (just
> like we have IS as a parsing variant of DEFER!), and that's how we got
> ACTION-OF.
>
> >200x hasn't
> >been shy breaking tradition. ANS says floats on the data stack is traditional
> >and permitted it. 200x says floats must have a separate stack.
>
> Yes, so Forth-2012 has standardized an aspect of floating-point that
> Forth-94 has not standardized. That's based on common practice:
> Hardly any programs that used FP were actually Forth-94 compliant and
> would run on both kinds of systems; most programs depended on a
> separate FP stack, so that's what we standardized.
>
> > ANS voted for
> >LOCALS|. 200x says its hideous and wants you to use {: :}.
>
> Most programmers who used locals found the locals order of LOCALS|
> unacceptable, and used the { ... } syntax with the other order
> instead. That became {: ... :} on standardization to avoid a conflict
> with a SwiftForth feature. LOCALS| is in Forth-2012, but obsolescent,
> so the recommendation is to change it to {: ... :} at some point in
> the future. But if you prefer LOCALS| and want to keep using it, you
> can define it with (LOCAL).
>
> > ANS says one
> >interpreted S" string is sufficient. 200x says two is necessary.
>
> Wow, Forth-2012 is a horrible tradition-breaking monster! It gives
> more guarantees to programs than Forth-94! The horror!
>
> >ANS says use
> >CHAR and [CHAR]. 200x tells you to use something else.
>
> You can still use CHAR and [CHAR]; they are not obsolescent. Now you
> can also write 'a', and cut-and-paste it between interpretation and
> compilation (a tradition-breaking change if ever there was one!).
>
> - anton
With possible exception of the first, all these changes boil down to personal
preference - not need.
If somebody chooses to break tradition and implement DEFER in a manner
that requires five words where previously two sufficed, it shouldn't become
my problem or Forth's. I could not justify three new words for a rarely used
feature that I could access in traditional ways.
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Rosetta Code: Catamorphism "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-24 15:27 +0000
Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 12:43 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-25 09:53 +0000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 06:41 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-25 16:06 -0500
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-08-25 20:40 -0700
Rosetta Code ( was Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-29 12:06 +1000
Re: Rosetta Code ( was Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-29 01:41 -0500
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-27 10:01 +0000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 01:21 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 01:36 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 07:23 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-29 16:58 +0000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism peter.m.falth@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 13:15 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-29 20:53 +0000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism peter.m.falth@gmail.com - 2016-08-30 04:47 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-05 07:13 +0000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-30 11:54 +1000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-31 12:34 +1000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-29 18:44 +1000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-01 23:47 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 12:42 +0200
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-02 11:45 +0000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 15:01 +0200
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-02 16:04 +0000
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-02 16:23 +0200
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 18:29 +0800
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 13:41 +0300
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 09:24 +0800
Standard or Forth? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-01 13:45 +1000
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 21:54 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 07:35 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-04 00:41 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 02:55 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 13:26 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-04 13:59 +0000
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-04 23:09 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 09:55 +0300
Re: Standard or Forth? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 08:39 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-04 01:25 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-09-04 14:13 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 23:16 +0200
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-04 22:33 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 09:03 +0300
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-06 23:23 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 10:14 +0300
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 01:01 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 11:18 +0300
Re: Standard or Forth? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-09-07 08:47 -0500
Re: Standard or Forth? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 09:20 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 02:21 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-05 08:10 +0000
Re: Standard or Forth? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 10:51 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-03 08:05 +0200
Re: Standard or Forth? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-03 03:00 -0500
Re: Standard or Forth? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-03 22:48 +1000
Re: Standard or Forth? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-09-03 15:05 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:46 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-09-03 23:53 +0200
Re: Standard or Forth? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-09-03 22:37 +0000
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-03 21:17 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-05 02:35 +1000
Re: Standard or Forth? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-05 03:18 +0200
Re: Standard or Forth? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-08 22:04 +1000
Re: Standard or Forth? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-08 12:41 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-09 12:51 +1000
Re: Standard or Forth? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-09-08 21:50 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-12 17:16 +1000
Re: Standard or Forth? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-12 16:59 +0000
Re: Standard or Forth? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-09-15 13:38 +1000
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 23:33 -0700
Re: Standard or Forth? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-09-05 08:41 +0100
Re: Standard or Forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 01:42 -0700
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-29 16:03 +0200
Re: Rosetta Code: Catamorphism anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-29 16:04 +0000
csiph-web