Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!BRFAPESP.BITNET!UNBCIC
From: UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: dpANS Forth
Message-ID: <9101282232.AA19981@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 28 Jan 91 12:29:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: UNBCIC%BRFAPESP.BITNET@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 93

> >COLROW
>   I don't like the name.  I presume it is to set a cursor  position on the
>screen.  I prefer the arguments to be ( row col - )  rather than ( col row -
>).  I could go along with the name TAB for  this.  Why not AT?  Anyway, let's
>not require it!  If possible, let's  remove it altogether. If it must be kept,
>let's not use the ugly name.

I though that @ is usually read as "AT".

> >LEX & the string word set.
>   Let's remove them altogether.

Okay, okay. You can implement it yourself. But *I* *NEED* machine language
speed for this feature. And, I can assure you, I'm *NOT* alone. Anyway, this is
one of your most strong points.

> >2DROP, 2DUP, 2OVER, 2SWAP, etc.
>   I don't feel strongly about where these are put.  In general I feel  the
>less in the core wordset the better.  I can live with them either  place.  And
>yes, certainly, I would ordinarily use them even in 32-bit  systems.

I agree.

> >ALIGN etc
>   Again I have no strong feeling here, so I give my default advice,  although
>weakly: take it out of the standard if possible; at least take  it out of the
>core.

Take it out of the core.

> >Input Stream wordset with #TIB, etc.
>   Ditto.  See default advice above, but with lower volume.  (I don't
>particularly object, in other words.)

We use it! So, we need it.

[deleted a comment where we are both in the dark, although I have some ideas
about it]

> >"This Standard does not require that each word be provided in
> > executable form.
>   This may the thing I like most (dislike least, perhaps) about the  ANSI
>standard.  It's the way I deal with DO LOOP in Pygmy.  (Thanks to  Robert
>Berkey) it's available in source form to load for anyone who  wants it, but it
>doesn't burden my system.

I agree.

>  >ONLY/ALSO
>   I don't use 'em, so throw them out.  Throw out WORDLIST and that  other
>one.  Put back VOCABULARY in an optional wordset and say it is  implementation
>dependent.

"I don't, use 'em, so...". I think there is no need for commenting.

>  > Toronto
>   I want words to be case sensitive.  I want the decimal point to  indicate

No case sensitive, please! If you put this in the standard, then I will try to
put CAPS.

>double precision (not floating point).  Let's standardize  BLOCK as returning

It indicates floating point! :-|

>an address of some sort that refers to a 1024 byte  area, but leave its
>relationship to disks, files, and the operating  system implementation
>specific.  Remove the file handling words from  the standard altogether.

I don't agree.

>>  ( u) FOR ...  NEXT
>   Specify that when u is zero the body of the loop is *not* executed  at all.
>Otherwise, the body is executed u times (not u+1 times).

Yeah.

>  Division
>   Leave it implementation dependent.

NO!!!

>>  CATCH & THROW
>   Leave 'em out of the standard.

I don't agree, but this is another strong point.


>  -- Frank

                              (8-DCS)
Daniel C. Sobral
UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET