,---------------. | Contributions | `---------------´ ,------------------------------------------ | 2026-06-14 22:39:57 oak wrote: | requestClarification - "character string specification" | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/COUNT#contribution-431 `------------------------------------------ What does "character string specification" mean? I did a search and this term appears only here. I also couldn't find terminology in the specification that describes a counted string **on the stack** (i.e. "c-addr u"), which differs from a counted string at a memory address (i.e. a char length followed by character data). If "character string specification" were defined to mean "c-addr u" on the stack, that could be helpful, as it seems to be described in varying ways across the spec. For example, TYPE says "the character string specified by c-addr and u", while S" says "c-addr and u describing a string". But perhaps a better, clearer term could be coined. The definition of "counted string" could also be extended to mention that when used as "counted string on the stack" means "c-addr u". For now, it might be clearer here to change the description of this word to, say, > Return the character string described by c-addr2 and u for the counted string stored at c-addr1. c-addr2 is the address of the first character after c-addr1. u is the contents of the character at c-addr1, which is the length in characters of the string at c-addr2. This is my first time commenting on this document. Please let me know if I misstepped anywhere. :) ,------------------------------------------ | 2026-06-14 22:48:09 oak wrote: | comment - Broken links | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/#contribution-432 `------------------------------------------ If this page is navigated to with no trailing forward slash, these links work fine. (e.g. clicking on "6 Glossary" on the left sidebar) However, if this page is navigated to *with* a trailing forward slash, all of these links are broken. They have the structure "https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/core/WORD". "/core" is given twice instead of once. I don't *think* anything in the spec links to this page in this fashion. Rather, I may have been on, say, https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/ABS, and just deleted the "ABS" at the end in my browser to get back to the glossary. ,---------. | Replies | `---------´ ,------------------------------------------ | 2026-06-14 04:23:46 LeonWagner replies: | requestClarification - Wording in 16.3.3 Find definition names | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/search#reply-1679 `------------------------------------------ It is correct as written. Wordlists are searched one at a time, so "each" is correct here. It does not say "all wordlists" (which would be a misinterpretation) and the sentence that follows it gives the clarification. ,------------------------------------------ | 2026-06-14 09:11:06 ruv replies: | requestClarification - Wording in 16.3.3 Find definition names | see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/search#reply-1680 `------------------------------------------ > Wordlists are searched one at a time, so "each" is correct here. Regardless of grammatical correctness, this phrasing creates a slight mental friction, because: - “a word list” means one arbitrary element of a class; - “each word list” means every item in that class; This in itself might create the misleading impression that when searching one wordlist, the system shall search every wordlist. But that is not what was intended. It seems to me, a better option would be: - When searching a word list for a definition name, the system shall search **that word list** from its last definition to its first. In this option, we avoid repeating the same noun at the same abstraction level (“a word list … each word list”). Other options (explicitly specify the rule for all word lists): - Each word list shall be searched for a definition name from the last definition to the first. - For each word list, the system shall search for a definition name from the last definition to the first. ,------------------------------------------ | 2026-06-14 22:50:21 ruv replies: | proposal - Special memory access words | see: https://forth-standard.org/proposals/special-memory-access-words#reply-1681 `------------------------------------------ @KrishnaMyneni wrote: > I agree with Anton that UW>S is not needed since the `W` in `W>S` just indicates a word type of either signed or unsigned. I agree with the name `w>s`. However, "`w`" in this word name does not indicate a number of either signed or unsigned. It indicates a **16-bit signed number**. For example, the integer number `65000` cannot be represented as a 16-bit signed integer, but it can be represented it as a 16-bit unsigned integer. > For an unsigned word on the stack, `W>S` will sign extend it `w>s` cannot extend a 16-bit unsigned integer `65000`. ----- What do you think regarding the naming options `uwbe` and `uw!`?