From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com   
      
   On 11-02-2026 10:05, jkn wrote:   
   > On 11/02/2026 00:21, dxf wrote:   
   >> On 11/02/2026 4:48 am, jkn wrote:   
   >>> ...   
   >>> I have no skin in this game at all - I am basically an observer of   
   >>> both the language,   
   >>> and this newsgroup. But it seems strange to me that in a language   
   >>> that is so   
   >>> self-describedly flexible as Forth, the operation of the inner   
   >>> interpreter should   
   >>> not itself be open to flexibility.   
   >>   
   >> IIRC recognizers was a c.l.f invention.  Each forth, it was noted, had   
   >> its own way   
   >> of integrating floating-point into the system - fp being an 'optional   
   >> extension'   
   >> of Forth-94.  Typically integration was achieved through hooks the   
   >> system designer   
   >> had purposely built into system.  Forth-94 had already defined how the   
   >> forth   
   >> interpreter should handle fp numbers.  Parsing words F# etc were not   
   >> an option.   
   >>   
   >> WIBN (wouldn't it be nice) it was argued if these hooks into the   
   >> interpreter could   
   >> be made portable.  It caught the imagination of sufficient users (in   
   >> forth there's   
   >> little distinction between user and system-designer) and the rest is   
   >> history.   
   >> Recognizers were sufficiently complicated prompting more justification   
   >> than fp (1)   
   >> in order to sell it.  It was 'a solution in search of a problem'.   
   >> From that came   
   >> the idea that forth should be able to parse *anything* - however   
   >> unlikely or little   
   >> used.   
   >>   
   >> (1) While fp integration prompted recognizers, recognizers were never   
   >> a complete   
   >> solution.  Integrating fp into a system often requires more than   
   >> simply making the   
   >> interpreter recognize fp numbers.  System-specific hooks remain.   
   >>   
   >   
   >  > From that came   
   >  > the idea that forth should be able to parse *anything* - however   
   >  >unlikely or little   
   >  > used.   
   >   
   > I was a bit surprised that "a space delimits 'symbols'" has not been   
   > made more flexible...   
   >   
      
   IMHO it has. PARSE allows you to parse for any delimiter. Some have   
   PARSE-WORD that allows skipping leading delimiters. There is also a   
   dedicated white-space parser called PARSE-NAME.   
      
   4tH has a word called OMIT which only skips leading delimiters without   
   parsing anything.   
      
   Hans Bezemer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)