Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: BASIS Feedback
Message-ID: <1032.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 29 May 90 03:24:37 GMT
Organization: Latest link in the ForthNet chain.  (Pgh, PA)
Lines: 72

Category 18,  Topic 54
Message 13        Mon May 28, 1990
D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 15:02 EDT
 
Re: ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik)

 > we all know what FM/MOD and SM/MOD are.

We actually now have 3 operators to divide a double precision number by a
single as follows:

        UM/MOD ( ud u1 -- u2 u3 ) for unsigned values
        FM/MOD ( d1 n1 -- n2 n3 ) for floored division
        SM/MOD ( d1 n1 -- n2 n3 ) for symmetric division

From these, whatever is needed by the application can be produced. By defining
the standard operators for only the positive case, the implementor is free to
either of the methods as primitives.  If an application specifically requires
signed operations, then the "standard" application will need to include
something like the following:

Signed floored division operators:
        : /_MOD  ( n1 n2 -- n3 n2)
        : /_     ( n1 n2 -- n3 )        /_MOD SWAP DROP ;
        : _MOD   ( n1 n2 -- n3 )        /_MOD DROP ;
        : */_MOD ( n1 n2 n3 -- n3 n4 )  >R M* R> FM/MOD ;
        : */_    ( n1 n2 n3 -- n3 )     */_MOD SWAP DROP ;
[There was some garbage in the above.  I hope I removed it and only it. -dwp]

This appears to be a resonable compromise and allows three methods to be used
in the same application.  It also allows the implementor to use whatever is
the most applicable to his system.  It will add some code to applications, but
I really do not see any other choice without alienating the two other choices
in favor of one.

 > I wonder if there is any possibility that the ANSI Committee has
 > put users of the language in a position where they really can't
 > comment?

How would you prefer that they do to sollicit your comments John? This is not
the first time I and others have asked for comments and proposals, and no one
has cut anyone off.  However, I hope everyone realizes that this process must
come to a close eventually.  The TC has already been working on this for 3
years and there is a limit to how much each of the individuals can afford to
dedicate to this process.  We have already seen the withdrawl of a few very
valuable individuals due to the expense and frustration of this effort.  How
much longer would you like to see people spend on it?

Very soon, the TC will issue a Press Release that details the schedule that
they would like to hold to.  It culminates in a final ANS Forth Standard by
March, 1992.  Perhaps this, more than anything, will illuminate the process
and shows why we must cut off additions to the standard soon.  There is a
Public Comment period coming soon, but first, the BASIS document must be
brought into a form that is acceptable by all.  The technical discussions were
supposed to be completed this last week, but there are a few details yet to be
resolved.

Having just gone through the grueling process for my first time, I wish I
could convey how much hard work the TC is doing.  These choices are not easy,
and some result in long, drawn out debates. Compromises MUST be made or we
will never have a standard.  There are basically two camps among all Forth
programmers, those who want only the minimum words standardized, and those who
want to include everything they could possibly need.  What we will end up with
is a compromise between the two, and hopefully all the factions within each
group will be satisfied that they have at least been heard.

DaR

BTW, I will forward your comments personally.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu