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


,------------------------------------------
| 2021-09-01 14:46:10  StephenPelc  wrote:
| proposal - 2021 Standards meeting agenda
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/2021-standards-meeting-agenda#contribution-210
`------------------------------------------
#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 |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2021-09-01 10:15:24  StephenPelc  replies:
| proposal - PLACE +PLACE
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/place-place#reply-718
`------------------------------------------
I support this proposal, but much prefer `APPEND` to `+PLACE`.



,------------------------------------------
| 2021-09-01 11:22:26  StephenPelc  replies:
| proposal - Tick and undefined execution semantics
| see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/tick-and-undefined-execution-semantics#reply-719
`------------------------------------------
"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.


,------------------------------------------
| 2021-09-01 13:33:38  StephenPelc  replies:
| requestClarification - Size of implementation dependent data types
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/usage#reply-720
`------------------------------------------
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.