From: achowe@snert.com   
      
   On 2024-09-17 07:59, Ruvim wrote:   
   > On 2024-09-17 15:20, minforth wrote:   
   >> I would like to see an "officially recognized" standard reference   
   >> system, speed and number of xt's per word are of no importance.   
   >>   
   >> Are you planning to make one?   
   >   
   > I think, having the single standard reference implementation is a big step   
   back   
   > in Forth standardization process. Because implementation details of the   
   > particular implementation will be used as requirements.   
      
   I think it should be recognised in some capacity, given Forth's origins, but   
   whether there should be a reference implementation probably not.   
      
      
   > I think, the standard conformance test suite is enough.   
      
   One would think so, but the test suite is:   
      
   * incomplete   
   * as published in draft 19-1 has typos and possible errors   
   * test cases often test multiple words at once that have not be tested   
   separately   
   * assumes the entire draft with all the optional sets are present, rather than   
   separate the word sets into separate unit tests   
      
   > For illustrative purposes, we can have several different implementations of   
   > Forth in Forth.   
      
   If there is reference implementation(s) I think it would be interesting to have   
   two: `single-xt` and `dual-xt` to demonstrate that both models worth and are   
   conforming.   
      
   --   
   Anthony C Howe   
   achowe@snert.com                                   BarricadeMX & Milters   
   http://nanozen.snert.com/                          http://software.snert.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)