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


,------------------------------------------
| 2023-04-09 12:41:33  JimPeterson  wrote:
| referenceImplementation - Possible Reference Implementation
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/string/BLANK#contribution-294
`------------------------------------------
I think this is effectively:

```
: BLANK ( c-addr u -- )
  BL FILL
;
```



,------------------------------------------
| 2023-04-09 18:50:46  JimPeterson  wrote:
| referenceImplementation - Possible Reference Implementation
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/string/SEARCH#contribution-295
`------------------------------------------
This is the best I could come up with for this one:

```
: SEARCH {: c-addr1 u1 c-addr2 u2 -- c-addr3 u3 flag :}
  c-addr1
  u1 u2 - 1+ 0 MAX 0 ?DO           \ only search up to u1-u2 characters
    DUP u2 c-addr2 u2 COMPARE 0= IF
      u1 I - TRUE UNLOOP EXIT      \ u3 is u1 minus however far we scanned in
    THEN
    CHAR+
  LOOP
  DROP
  c-addr1 u1 FALSE
;
```

The spec saying "... with *u<sup>3</sup>* characters remaining." sounds a bit vague to me, but I took it to mean that `c-addr3 u3 CHARS + c-addr1 u1 CHARS + =`, which is to say that *c-addr<sup>3</sup>* *u<sup>3</sup>* is the tail end of the *c-addr<sup>1</sup>* *u<sup>1</sup>* string, where *c-addr<sup>3</sup>* *u<sup>**2**</sup>* is the same string as *c-addr<sup>2</sup>* *u<sup>2</sup>* (when a match is found)

There is also no mention of whether or not the search proceeds forwards from *c-addr<sup>1</sup>* or backwards from *c-addr<sup>1</sup>+u<sup>1</sup>-u<sup>2</sup>*, or what happens if *c-addr<sup>2</sup>* *u<sup>2</sup>* appears multiple times in *c-addr<sup>1</sup>* *u<sup>1</sup>*.  It should maybe say "... for the first occurrence of the string specified by *c-addr<sup>2</sup>* *u<sup>2</sup>*."


,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2023-03-12 20:01:11  ruv  replies:
| referenceImplementation - Possible Reference Implementation
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/CONSTANT#reply-1007
`------------------------------------------
Yes, it's a possible and fully compliant implementation. I use this approach.

Please, include also a correct stack diagram into your definitions. It's also an ask to all contributors of reference implementations.