From: dxforth@gmail.com
On 12/11/2025 6:16 pm, Anton Ertl wrote:
> dxf writes:
>> The TC effectively pushed the problem of standardizing division into the
>> future, hoping future forthers and Standard would resolve it.
>
> Another way to view it is that Forth-94 provides FM/MOD and SM/REM for
> those who need a specific behaviour and /, MOD etc. for those who
> don't.
>
> As for common practice, which would be the foundation of standardizing
> one behaviour, among the Forth systems that I often check, on
> iforth, lxf, SwiftForth64, and VFX64 / is symmetric, and on gforth it
> is floored.
>
> BTW, another advantage of floored / is that "2 /" and 2/ have the same
> result.
>
>> The same
>> for NOT (another '83 blunder). But as is often the case, what is put off
>> is never completed.
>
> Forth-94 has 0= that takes 0/non-zero inputs and produces flag outputs
> (i.e., like the Forth-79 NOT, except that TRUE is all-bits-set in
> Forth-94), and INVERT for the Forth-83 NOT. These words have
> certainly been good enough in my work for the last three decades. Do
> we really need NOT?
>
> Apparently some people have the desire, so 4 out of 5 systems that I
> often check include a NOT. Is there common practice there? iForth,
> lxf, and SwiftForth64 have a NOT that behaves like 0=, while VFX64 has
> a NOT that behaves like INVERT. Gforth does not have a NOT.
>
> So no common practice has emerged for / nor for NOT, so it is unlikely
> that (more) standardization will happen in this area soon.
On the contrary. The common practice for Forth-94 systems was symmetric
division and INVERT paved the way for the return of 0= NOT. What was
lacking was the will to standardize - putting pressure on the holdouts.
The latter ended with Forth-94.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
