From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/11/2025 10:27 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   > In article <2025Nov10.074620@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,   
   > Anton Ertl  wrote:   
   >> dxf  writes:   
   >>> I can't think of that many instances where I've used signed division.   
   >>   
   >> When Gforth switched from symmetric to floored for / MOD, etc., there   
   >> were no complaints that I remember.   
   >>   
   >> This lack of complaints indicates that division with negative operands   
   >> either does not occur, or that it occurs, but the users wanted floored   
   >> division and have not used the earlier symmetric /, MOD etc., but have   
   >> used FM/MOD instead.   
   >   
   > Indeed. The intent of the 94 standard was that one can choose   
   > where it matters and ignore where it doesn't matter.   
   > That makes the choice less important.   
      
   In fact it made choice unnecessary.  The immediate concern of '94 however   
   was avoiding a repeat of the '83 fallout - even if it meant ditching   
   standardization for the moment:   
      
     A.3.2.2.1 Integer division   
      
     "This compromise protects the investment made in current Forth applications"   
      
   The TC effectively pushed the problem of standardizing division into the   
   future, hoping future forthers and Standard would resolve it.  The same   
   for NOT (another '83 blunder).  But as is often the case, what is put off   
   is never completed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)