Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!eutws1!rcstjs
From: rcstjs@eutws1.win.tue.nl (Jan Stout)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: various BASIS10 remarks & suggestions
Message-ID: <1637@tuegate.tue.nl>
Date: 21 Mar 90 12:19:46 GMT
Sender: news@tuegate.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 50

1. >COLROW
   I don't like the unpredictable operation of this word (which arguments lead
   to proper operation) and would therefore like to see some variables like
   #COLS and #ROWS (meaning the max # of colums, max # of rows resp. on the
   current output device...) to enter the Standard.
   A value of 0 could signify a non-COL/ROW oriented outputdevice.
   
   (Is there an account available of Forths using the y x -AT syntax?)

2. ?KEY
   Hasn't anyone read Brodie's Thinking Forth ???
   I'd say ?KEY's primary function is to establish if a key is struck,
   yes or no. Clearly this reflects a boolean function. I'd suggest KEY?
   as the proper name for this function, bearing in mind Brodie's Forthics.

3. S>D and D>S
   These words use the S to indicate single precision numbers. Throughout
   the remaider of the Standard the single-precision-type-indication is
   simply omitted. At first sight >D and D> seem appropriate, but D>
   should stand for `double precision greater than' so other analogies
   are called for. My suggestion is N>D and D>N because of the abbreviation
   of singles in stackcomments.

4. COMPILE
   Can anyone explain to me why a definition of
   : COMPILE    >R  DUP 3 +  >R  C@ C, ( store the JSR ) @ , ;
   wouldn't run on subroutine threaders?

5. ?DO
   I'd say TD never has implemented his own DO-LOOP, since during compilation
   ?DO's extra adres can be seen by LOOP as just another LEAVE reference and
   be solved accordingly. Whether this should be called `smart' is ^2U.
    
   (Why not let the orig dest duo be sys anyway?)

6. INVERT
   NOT's renaming because of F79 ad FIG compatibility strikes me as rather 
   nonconsistent: the 79 NOT comes from an environment where 1 instead of -1
   meant TRUE, so `and' and `or' operators could be implemented by * and +
   respectively. The F83 Standard however, discarded of this (inefficient)
   concept and made -1 truth, thereby condemning NOT to bitwise operation
   as a member of the AND, OR and XOR team. It seems strange for NOT to
   adhere to the old valuation-model, especiallly when 0= is available to
   achieve the same goal.

7. #>, EXPECT, FIND, FORGET
   I'd prefer all string operators to accept 'em uncounted and deliver 'em
   counted, like TYPE ad WORD do, to increase flexibility and uniformity.

PS: I've been looking for "'s definition is the F83 standard, but found none...