[183] 2021-03-30 16:05:59 ruv wrote:

requestClarification - Size of implementation dependent data types

May an implementation dependent data type be variable in size?

For example, may the size of colon-sys from : be unequal to the size of colon-sys from :NONAME?

I think, yes, it may. But it is not obvious from the text of the standard.A practical argument is that in many implementations of ENDOF ( C: case-sys1 of-sys -- case-sys2 ) the size of case-sys1 is not equal to the size of case-sys2.

[r621] 2021-03-14 02:01:49 LeonWagner replies:

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

Shouldn't the burden be on eForth to document that it is non-standard?

[r622] 2021-03-14 18:43:52 AntonErtl replies:

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

Actually # etc. use double numbers in all Forth standards. It seems to me that it's some newer minimal systems (especially with wider cells) that don't want to implement all the prerequisites of a proper double-cell # and therefore choose to change # to work on a single cell.

It's a good idea if such systems document this deviation from standard and common practice, but given that at least one user was not aware of the difference, adding a warning here may be helpful.

It would be an even better idea if these systems used different names for their non-standard words.

[r623] 2021-03-26 19:57:04 JimPeterson replies:

referenceImplementation - Suggested reference implementation

Another suggested implementation:

: 2OVER 3 PICK 3 PICK ;

(might be faster)

[r624] 2021-03-30 18:43:47 ruv replies:

requestClarification - Size of implementation dependent data types

Certainly when I talk "the size of a data type", I mean the size of a data object of this data type.