In article <698fd57e$1@news.ausics.net>, dxf wrote:
>On 14/02/2026 10:50 am, Gerry Jackson wrote:
>> On 13/02/2026 12:43, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>> On 13-02-2026 09:27, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> I could have used "one" - wouldn't have changed the meaning. Nice
"Whataboutism"! The argument was (and is) what use has a standard for a
>toy compiler?
>>
>> There's another point I think you're missing. I just looked on at my Forth
test suite on GitHub and 78 people have found it useful enough to
>give it a star. I've no idea whether they are all developing their own "toy"
system but I would guess most are, and their system has to have
>some testing. I suggest that the easiest way is to use an existing test
suite. As far as I know there is only one, so that automatically leads
>them to make their system (at least partially) standard compliant. An
unexpected (and unintended) consequence of having a test suite.
>
>Cart before horse but I agree. First-time creators will generally pick some
>standard or system because it's the easiest way. All the thinking has been
>done for one and there's a wealth of existing source from which to choose or
>use as a guide. It's a rare lion that hasn't undertaken internship as a
camel.
>Moore appears to have been a rebel, lone wolf, from the beginning for whom
>conformity was anathema, stagnation.
>
You have to test also the words you define yourself. The best is to
come up with complete test for each word, in combination with the
specification and the definition.
This is an example from ciforth:
worddoc( {LOGIC},{0=},{zero_equals},{n --- ff},{ISO,FIG},
{Leave a true flag forthvar({ff}) is the number forthvar({n})
is equal to zero, otherwise leave a false flag.
It may be aliased to forthcode({NOT}) , which inverts a flag.
},{{=},{0<}},
{ {0 0= .},{_T_},
{ 1 0= .},{0},
{ -1 0= .},{0} },
enddoc)
CODE_HEADER({0=},{ZEQU}) dnl ZEQU is the name used in the assembler file.
POP AX _C{S2}
AND AX,AX
SETZ AL
MOVZX AX,AL
NEG AX
_PUSH
_C
Stack effect, properties, specifications, also's , tests and
code.
(Macro _PUSH has inside a _NEXT. )
Groetjes Albert
--
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
