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


,------------------------------------------
| 2025-07-21 01:53:36  EricBlake  wrote:
| testcase - Typo in test
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/IF#contribution-384
`------------------------------------------
The test for IF and ELSE has this line twice
```
 T{ -1 GI1 -> 123 }T 
```
should the second one be
```
 T{ -1 GI2 -> 123 }T 
```
instead?


,------------------------------------------
| 2025-07-21 02:57:44  EricBlake  wrote:
| testcase - Suggested test
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/AGAIN#contribution-385
`------------------------------------------
It is possible to test AGAIN without an infinite loop if combined with the tools set AHEAD and CS-ROLL, as in:
```
: [1cs-roll] 1 CS-ROLL ; IMMEDIATE 
T{ : GI7 0 BEGIN (cs: -- d1 )
  111  ( first pass: -- 0 111 ; second pass: -- 0 111 444 111)
  OVER IF ( cs: -- d1 o2 )
    222 ( second pass only: -- 0 111 444 111 222 )
    AHEAD ( cs: -- d1 o2 o3 )
    [1cs-roll] ( cs: -- d1 o3 o2 )
    333 \ unreachable
  THEN ( cs: -- d1 o3 ) \ resolve the IF
   444 ( first pass only: -- 0 111 444 )
   [1cs-roll] ( cs: -- o3 d1 )
  AGAIN ( cs: -- o3 ) \ resolve the BEGIN
  555 \ unreachable
  THEN ( cs: -- ) \ resolve the AHEAD
  666 ( -- 0 111 444 111 222 666 )
; -> }T
T{ GI7 -> 0 111 444 111 222 666 }T
```
It would also be possible to test breaking a BEGIN-AGAIN loop with throw in the loop body, using the exception word set.



,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2025-07-20 12:02:55  AntonErtl  replies:
| requestClarification - What should the behavior be if the system has no hard-coded limit on size?
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/UNUSED#reply-1454
`------------------------------------------
If you include `unused`, it has to provide the size of the remaining dictionary (`here` region) space.  Returning the maxiumum unsigned value (what -1 becomes if you interpret it as unsigned) is probably wrong:  `unused allot` should work.

Letting `unused` report less than might actually be `allot`able is not according to the specification, either, but I don't see how a standard program that uses `unused` would run into problems from that.  At worst it uses less memory than would otherwise be available.

Finally, not implementing `unused` avoids the problem completely, but programs that use `unused` will not work out of the box.  I don't think there are many such programs, however.


,------------------------------------------
| 2025-07-21 13:54:29  EricBlake  replies:
| comment - F.3.18 typo
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/testsuite#reply-1455
`------------------------------------------
Other typos: F.3.1 has "unsinged" instead of "unsigned"; F.3.10 has "signes" instead of "signs".  At this point, it is probably better to run a code spell-checker over the entire testsuite than to call out individual problems as I spot them.