From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/04/2025 4:42 pm, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   > dxf  writes:   
   >> On the topic of documentation Forth Standard (the document to which   
   >> everyone looks) hasn't clarified aspects of REPRESENT F. etc.   
   >   
   > The document does not write itself.   
      
   No, and neither has anyone as the Synod doesn't say what needs to be done.   
   Can you imagine if Forth-94 had used that approach?  AFAIK sub-committees   
   were allocated tasks.   
      
   > If you think that something is   
   > unclear, you can make a request for clarification on   
   >  (when it runs again, hopefully soon).   
   > If you think that some text should be changed in a specific way, you   
   > can make a proposal for that.  If you have no interest in doing that   
   > for these topics (which seem to be important enough to mention them   
   > here), why should anybody else have an interest in doing that?   
   >   
   >> That holes still exist after 30 years can only mean forthers are   
   >> content with less than perfect documentation.  No?   
   >   
   > In the case of "F.", I actually believe that most users would prefer   
   > something that produces an output, possibly in scientific   
   > representation, of up to 20 characters over the exact implementation   
   > of the specification that is implemented by Gforth and VFX:   
   >   
   > 1e200 f. 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000   
   0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000   
   0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000   
   00000000000000000.  ok   
   > 1e-200 f. 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000   
   0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000   
   0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000   
   0000000000000000001  ok   
   >   
   > But nobody has written a proposal for changing "F." in that way.  The   
   > feedback on such a proposal would indicate whether my belief is   
   > correct or not.  The absence of such a proposal indicates that the   
   > topic is not important enough for Forth programmers and implementors.   
      
   That wasn't it.  Rather the relation between 'significant digits' and   
   output is never really specified.  Even the example Forth-94 gave ( 1E3 F. )   
   didn't help because no mention of the PRECISION used.   
      
   NT/FORTH (C) 2005  Peter Fälth  Version 1.6-983-824 Compiled on 2017-12-03   
      
   3 set-precision   
   1e3 f.  1000.  ok   
      
   6 set-precision  ok   
   1e f.  1.00000  ok   
   1e4 f.  10000.0  ok   
   1e-4 f.  0.000100000  ok   
   0e f.  0.00000  ok   
      
      
   Gforth 0.7.9_20200709   
      
   3 set-precision   
   1e3 f. 1000.  ok   
      
   6 set-precision  ok   
   1e f. 1.  ok   
   1e4 f. 10000.  ok   
   1e-4 f. 0.0001  ok   
   0e f. 0.  ok   
      
   Not sure whether it would affect a Standard Program but I imagine porting   
   a real-world app could be a problem.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)