,---------------.
| Contributions |
`---------------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2021-05-21 17:58:29  JimPeterson  wrote:
| referenceImplementation - Possible Reference Implementation
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/string/DivSTRING#contribution-203
`------------------------------------------
Would this be a sufficient reference implementation?:

```
: /STRING  DUP >R - SWAP R> CHARS + SWAP ;
```

Are there no checks for when u2 might go negative (or, really, wraps around, as it's considered unsigned)?


,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2021-05-21 22:33:11  ruv  replies:
| referenceImplementation - Possible Reference Implementation
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/string/DivSTRING#reply-695
`------------------------------------------
> Are there no checks for when u2 might go negative?

Formally, _u2_ cannot be negative since it's an unsigned number (a number that is interpreted as an unsigned number). See [data type symbols](https://forth-standard.org/standard/usage#table:datatypes) and their meaning.

In some use-cases it could be a problem if _n_ > _u1_, but it's out of the scope of the standard, if a user tries to shoot himself in the foot. OTOH, it could be a correct and expected intermediate result.

> Would this be a sufficient reference implementation?

Yes, I think. Other possible variants:

```
: /string ( c-addr1 u1 n -- c-addr2 u2 ) tuck - >r chars + r> ;
: /string ( c-addr1 u1 n -- c-addr2 u2 ) tuck - -rot chars + swap ;
```