Digest #137 2021-03-14


[182] 2021-03-13 22:39:27 MitraArdron wrote:

comment - Note incompatability (double v single) with some older Forth's.

It should be noted that the words <# SIGN # #S #> etc are one of the few places in Forth where words have different stack effects in different Forth versions. Under Forth2012 and some other standards, they operate on double words, in systems based on eForth they work on single numbers.


[r617] 2021-03-13 02:12:02 MitraArdron replies:

requestClarification - Cell width for numbers

Happy to Anton, but I haven't contributed any text to the standard yet, and its not clear how to do this other than adding a Comment, which I think is what we did ... i.e. it ends up in this section where we are discussing. Could you point me in the right direction.

[r618] 2021-03-13 08:44:13 AntonErtl replies:

requestClarification - Is a counted string limited to 255 chars?

For the c-addr u representation, u can be >255 (basically any value). Concerning PARSE, a standard program cannot use lines >128 chars in files, >80 chars on the command line, but blocks have 1024 chars, and there are no limits for EVALUATEd strings, so yes, there can be PARSEd strings with >255 chars.

[r619] 2021-03-13 08:59:39 AntonErtl replies:

requestClarification - Cell width for numbers

Yes, I meant such a comment. The difference from this comment would be that the comment would point out the problem (non-standard behaviour of eforth) right from the start instead of it being buried deep down in our exchange, and that there would also be such a comment for PARSE. And we could close this comment, which I am now doing (you can reopen it if you feel the need).

[r620] 2021-03-13 22:40:05 MitraArdron replies:

requestClarification - Cell width for numbers

OK Anton, done - if that matches what you want I'll add it to the other words.