From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 27/12/2024 10:04 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article <2024Dec26.225518@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   > Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >> Paul Rubin  writes:   
   >>> I'm having trouble finding the place in ANS 94[0] or Forth 2012[1] where   
   >>> any of this is specified.  That surprises me.  Particularly, 3.4.1.3   
   >>> Text interpreter input number conversion doesn't discuss the matter.   
   >>   
   >>    
   >   
   > (In my old '92 copy it is in a subsection of 8.3 )   
   > A forth that interprets e.g. 3.14 as a floating point number   
   > is as non-standard as a Forth that interprets 3.14 is a double.   
   > Think about it!   
   >   
   > How would a proposal like this fare:   
   > "   
   >     A double number is only recognized as it ends *and starts*   
   >     with a period.   
   >     Recognizing a double if it ends only in a period becomes   
   >     obsolescent.   
   > "   
   > .314.   : double   
   > 3.14    : fp   
   > .314E1  : fp   
      
   It's not orthodoxy.  Are folks more - or less - likely to go it alone   
   today than 30 years ago when proposals like this were first made?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)