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


,------------------------------------------
| 2026-06-19 05:37:45  olus2000  wrote:
| comment - Incorrect conditional nesting in the "no unassigned blocks" case.
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/block/BLOCK#contribution-434
`------------------------------------------
> If the block in that buffer has been [UPDATE](https://forth-standard.org/standard/block/UPDATE)d, transfer the block to mass storage and transfer block *u* from mass storage into that buffer.

This sentence implies that transfer of block *u* from mass storage into the buffer is conditional on the block that's already in the buffer having been [UPDATE](https://forth-standard.org/standard/block/UPDATE)d. It seems obvious to me that this isn't the intent, so I think it would be good to reword it. It can be simply split like this:

> If the block in that buffer has been [UPDATE](https://forth-standard.org/standard/block/UPDATE)d, transfer the block to mass storage. Transfer block *u* from mass storage into that buffer.

Or it can be rearranged somewhat to move transfer of block *u* outside of the conditional, maybe something like:

> Transfer block *u* from mass storage into that buffer, transfering the block in that buffer to mass storage beforehand if that block has been [UPDATE](https://forth-standard.org/standard/block/UPDATE)d.

The entire paragraph could also be split into two separate cases, but I think that would be overkill and wouldn't help clarity of the definition.


,---------.
| Replies |
`---------´


,------------------------------------------
| 2026-06-17 07:16:57  ruv  replies:
| comment - Broken links
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/#reply-1683
`------------------------------------------
> However, if this page is navigated to with a trailing forward slash, all of these links are broken.

This webpage is: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/

Yes, the server should return either a 404 error or valid content (including optional redirection).

The sources are at https://github.com/GeraldWodni/forth-standard.org
If you know how to fix the issue (add either a redirection or 404 error), please make a pull-request.



,------------------------------------------
| 2026-06-17 07:34:33  ruv  replies:
| comment - "single-cell"
| see: https://forth-standard.org/standard/core/DivMOD#reply-1684
`------------------------------------------
Yes, this repetition is redundant. And since "single-cell" is used for some stack parameters but not others, it can be confusing. I would suggest removing "single-cell" qualification from this semantics description.