From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 24/11/2024 12:09 am, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article <8b00c0b3ab87b7154adc00d7fe89bde6817367b5@i2pn2.org>,   
   > dxf   wrote:   
   >> On 22/11/2024 9:11 pm, minforth wrote:   
   >>> Must be bad weather and boring where you live. ;-)   
   >>   
   >> You're welcome :)   
   >>   
   >>> If you have a lot of strings to juggle, treat yourself   
   >>> to a string stack. Forth is all about flexibility, right?   
   >>   
   >> A relative never cleaned their email inbox.  For the last   
   >> month any message sent bounced with 'mailbox full'.  Their   
   >> solution was to pay for a bigger inbox.   
   >   
   > If you set aside 1 Gbyte of a 8 Gbyte for a circular string   
   > stack, why don't you do like me? Permanently allocate all   
   > strings in the dictionary. This is a so called memory leak,   
   > but this is not so bad compared to wasting 1 Gbyte up front.   
   > Works well together with MARKER, I'd see better than a circular   
   > string set.   
      
   For systems that use a circular buffer to store temporary strings   
   the size is typically 1 or 2 Kb.  That's reflected in the rather   
   vague spec for S" .  AFAICS the 2012 decision was more about   
   implementing common practice than needing common practice.  IMO   
   Forth-94 got the balance right for both S" and floating point stack.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)