From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
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.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2025 CFP: http://www.euroforth.org/ef25/cfp.html
EuroForth 2025 registration: https://euro.theforth.net/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
