Digest #162 2021-09-02

Contributions

[210] 2021-09-01 14:46:10 StephenPelc wrote:

proposal - 2021 Standards meeting agenda

#F orth Standard Committee Meeting Draft agenda

7-9 Sept 2021 15:00-19:30 UTC

Online - see chat.forth-standard.org,

Agenda Draft 1 - 1 Sept 2021

Participants

Review of Procedures

  1. Covid consequences
  2. Brexit consequences
  3. Payment for services and licences Until now, this has always been done informally.
  4. Closure mechanism for discussions to avoid inconsequential stuff being discussed at the next meeting.
  5. Real name of user should be required by the web site, but need not be displayed. A standard is a public document.

Reports

  1. Chair
  2. Editor
  3. Technical
  4. Treasurer

Election of officers

  1. Chair - Nominations needed
  2. Editor - Peter Knaggs
  3. Technical - Gerald Wodni
  4. Treasurer - Bernd Paysan

Review of Proposals

Interpretation semantic for locals are undefined (SFP)

According to AE, see vote 17, 12Y:0:0 of the 2020 meeting.

Reword the term "execution token" (AE)

Recognisers

Chair's comment. Go back to the beginning and get your ducks in a row. You have to work together. There are plenty of systems with recognisers now. Please see what common practice is. Standards are not the place for flashy new design.

Common terminology for recognizers discurse and specifications (RUV)

minimalistic core API for recognizers (BP)

An alternative to the RECOGNIZER proposal (APH)

Tick and undefined execution semantics (RUV)

EMIT and non-ASCII values (AE)

Reference implementations are not normative (AE)

Harmonization of COMPILE, wording (RUV)

Adopt Gerry Jackson Test suite (SFP)

PLACE and +PLACE or APPEND (UHO)

Review of Discussions

Is TICK immediate?

Close?

Run-Time Section is Missing Words (JP)

Conversion error LaTex to HTML? (Editor)

Size of implementation dependent data types (RUV)

ALLOT in ROMmable systems (TG9541)

(Almost) portable implemetation of POSTPONE.

XC-WIDTH return value - -1 for unknown.

D>S Inaccurate Test Case - close?

Implementation for «S"» via the immediacy mechanism (RUV)

Portable implementation for SYNONYM (RUV)

Suggested reference implementation

###T est suite, WHILE DEPTH

[ is IMMEDIATE

2VALUE corrections

Workshop Topics

Workshops are topics for discussion outside the formal meeting.

###Future Document Format

###S tack comments stack comments should be parseable Stack naming S: D: F: N: R: stack effect notation stack effect conventions

Workshop reports

Consideration of proposals + CfV votes

Matters arising

Any other business

Date of next meeting

Replies

[r718] 2021-09-01 10:15:24 StephenPelc replies:

proposal - PLACE +PLACE

I support this proposal, but much prefer APPEND to +PLACE.

[r719] 2021-09-01 11:22:26 StephenPelc replies:

proposal - Tick and undefined execution semantics

"It is not an error to tick a word. There may be an error if the returned result is used incorrectly." "I understand this point. But an ambiguous condition is a formal thing."

The ambiguous condition is generated by using the result, not by ticking the word.

I systems wish to perform checks in ' and friends, that is their privilege. However, the standard should never force a system to do so.

[r720] 2021-09-01 13:33:38 StephenPelc replies:

requestClarification - Size of implementation dependent data types

I seen nothing that indicates that such sizes need to be consistent. However, you need to be sure that you have covered all use cases and have included the relevant version data (size) in the returned data.