Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Standards, Portability, Division, and FORTH.
Message-ID: <1352.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jul 90 02:32:01 GMT
References: <9007161459.AA12996@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 46

In <9007161459.AA12996@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET writes:
> I think having the standard say "'\' is guaranteed to work thus-and-such
> over the following range, and the rest is implementation dependent, but
> 'xx/MOD' and 'yy/MOD' (I forget the names) are available and work
> like this . . ." is a wonderful compromise, and one you probably
> couldn't get away with in any language but FORTH, where adding words
> to the language is so easy.
I agree and for the reasons you stated.

> Some of the things that gave us the greatest problems with portability
> were exactly those things that were left implementation dependent.
> The two that come to mind are whether or not CHAR was signed or
> unsigned and just how big an integer was.
The value of knowing that something is Implementation defined is in
knowing that you had better be very careful in using that something.
Whether or not CHAR is signed doesn't effect its use for storing
printable characters.  It does effect what kinds of small integers
you can stuff into it, but that *is* implementation dependant unless
you are very careful.  The point is not that CHAR should or shouldn't
be unsigned, the point is that you need a red-flag to tell you that
it is a potential problem area.

> If you don't want to write portable code, *NOTHING CHANGES*.
> The vendor can be ANSI compliant, but *YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE THE
> NEW ANSI WORDS*.
It seems that this point is being made over and over again, but there
are some that don't accept it.  For those of you that don't, *reasons*
would go a long way to generating more light than heat.  If there
are flaws with this kind of reasoning, then point them out.

> P.S.: John, a better toolshop (and some good tools!) is a wonderful
> idea.  But we've got a non-conformant reality to deal with.  Legislating
> something desirable *NEVER* makes it happen, and often slows it down.
> I think *portable* FORTH is more important than improving the FORTH
> toolshop in the current context, and a whole lot more practical.
> If you want a better toolshop, the best way to get it is to make it,
> possibly with the help of some friends, and then see if it is good
> enough that other people will adopt it.  That's what Chuck did, after
> all!
I'm curious to know what John's reply to this is going to be. :-)


-Doug
-----
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