,---------------. | Contributions | `---------------´ ,------------------------------------------ | 2025-01-22 15:36:24 pda wrote: | requestClarification - where definition is compiled? | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/ColonNONAME#contribution-373 `------------------------------------------ I couldn't find in any standard (fig-forth, ans...) a definition of the word saying how it is implemented, specially where the definition list of the word created using :NONAME is compiled. In :NONAME 2 * ; where "2 *" is compiled? where in memory is literal 2 and * xt? and how long it will be using that memory? is there any way to free the memory? ,------------------------------------------ | 2025-01-22 16:50:21 ruv wrote: | requestClarification - `NAME>STRING` result is transient | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/NAMEtoSTRING#contribution-374 `------------------------------------------ [15.6.2.1909.40 `NAME>STRING`](https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/NAMEtoSTRING) says: > The buffer containing _c-addr u_ may be transient and valid until the next invocation of `NAME>STRING`. What is the point of allowing the returned string to be in a transient buffer? Which implementation approach benefits from that? In typical implementations, the lifetime of the returned string is the same as the lifetime of _nt_. ,---------. | Replies | `---------´ ,------------------------------------------ | 2024-12-31 10:48:46 AntonErtl replies: | requestClarification - May `CODE` be a parsing word? | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/tools/CODE#reply-1413 `------------------------------------------ The traditional implementation is to use the Forth parser. But given the specification, how would you detect the difference? So yes, I think that both kinds of implementations are standard-conforming. ,------------------------------------------ | 2025-01-08 19:05:30 EricDennison replies: | comment - There is error in testing | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/SMDivREM#reply-1414 `------------------------------------------ Should the original (presumably incorrect) version of this test still appear here and at F.6.1.2214 SM/REM ? ,------------------------------------------ | 2025-01-09 12:02:44 ruv replies: | comment - There is error in testing | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/SMDivREM#reply-1415 `------------------------------------------ This web-page shows the contents of the sections 6.1.2214 and F.6.1.2214 in [Forth-2012 (pdf)](http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf) (see also [Intro](https://forth-standard.org/standard/intro)). If this content is changed, it will no longer reflect Forth-2012. I think that only a web-page with erratum (or a special comment in each web-page) can be added to Forth-2012 and here. See also the issue: [Support several versions of the standard in parallel](https://forth-standard.org/meta-discussion#contribution-266). ,------------------------------------------ | 2025-01-18 03:42:19 ashleyf replies: | example - | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/ERASE#reply-1416 `------------------------------------------ Or perhaps `N buffer: counts counts N erase`