From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
Hans Bezemer writes:
>On 12-02-2026 08:35, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> [...] small implementations
>> pick and choose from the standard requirements anyway, even among the
>> requirements for CORE words. The CORE wordset has only been a
>> goalpost for peoplle who implement Forth as an exercise.
...
>I don't think that people who are "implementing Forth as an exercise"
>can be bothered to make it "a standard compiler".
The point is not standard conformance, but a goalpost: To have
something to direct the work, and also to have something that tells
the implementor when the project is complete.
>And although wordsets build modularity (which I welcome) it becomes
>useless when it requires you to patch wordsets already implemented.
Who is "you" in this sentence? Given that you write "implemented",
you seem to argue that the standard requires the system implementor to
implement the base word, and then to patch it. This is not the case.
The system implementor who has decided to implement the FILE words in
addition to the CORE words can implement the FILE version of S" from
the start, without any patching.
Note also that the FILE version of S" conforms to the requirements for
the CORE version of S", and that's generally the case for the extended
versions of words. E.g., the specification of CORE's POSTPONE
includes
| An ambiguous condition exists if name is not found.
so it does not specify what "POSTPONE 123" means. The proposed
recognizer version of POSTPONE specifies that.
- 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 proceedings: http://www.euroforth.org/ef25/papers/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
