From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/11/2025 9:13 pm, minforth wrote:   
   > Am 12.11.2025 um 08:16 schrieb Anton Ertl:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Agreed.   
   >   
   > Discussions like this remind me of the saying, ‘fly with the   
   > eagles or scratch with the chickens’. Getting worked up about remainder   
   > or modulus after decades of Forth doesn't get us anywhere, it's only   
   > good for the chickens. There are other 'eagle' areas that need work,   
   > such as libraries.   
   >   
   > But Forth no longer has the critical mass for eagle topics, neither in   
   > the software industry nor in the open source or hobby sector.   
   >   
   > But to remain constructive: it is positive that at least the existing   
   > standard is being maintained.   
      
   Protected, yes.  It should be renamed the FSC - Forth Security Council.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)