From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at   
      
   Ruvim  writes:   
   >Do you think that the Forth standard should recognize the classic   
   >single-xt approach as possible for implementing a standard Forth system?   
      
   I think that that's certainly intended at some point by the   
   standardization committee, and I would support reasonable changes to   
   the standard to make such systems standard-conforming.  But I think   
   it's up to the people who have implemented such a system (in   
   particular, Forth, Inc.)  to propose something reasonable in this   
   direction.  They have not done so (and there has been ample   
   opportunity), so they seem to be happy with the current state of   
   affairs: SwiftForth does not comply with the standard for S" and a   
   number of other words, but apparently nobody has complained, so they   
   won't fix these words nor propose changing the standard.   
      
   An alternative (and probably less work than changing the standard) is   
   to fix SwiftForth (e.g., by special-casing the dual-sematics words in   
   NAME>INTERPRET and NAME>COMPILE), but it's even less work is to let   
   sleeping dogs lie.   
      
   - anton   
   --   
   M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html   
   comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html   
        New standard: https://forth-standard.org/   
      EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)