17.6.2.2375 UNESCAPE STRING EXT
Replace each `%' character in the input string
c-addr1 u1 by two `%' characters. The output
is represented by c-addr2 u2. The buffer at c-addr2
shall be big enough to hold the unescaped string. An ambiguous
condition occurs if the resulting string will not fit into the
destination buffer (c-addr2).
See:
Implementation:
\ Replace each '
%' character in the input string c-addr1 len1 with two '%' characters. \ The output is represented by c-addr2 len2.
\ If you pass a string through UNESCAPE and then SUBSTITUTE, you get the original string.
DUP 2SWAP OVER + SWAP ?DO
I C@ [CHAR] % = IF
[CHAR] % OVER C! 1+
THEN
I C@ OVER C! 1+
LOOP
OVER -
;
Testing:
subbuff, sub5 and sub6 from F.17.6.2.2255 SUBSTITUTE.
T{ sub6 subbuff UNESCAPE sub5 COMPARE -> 0 }T
ContributeContributions
ruv
[85] Etymology and naming issueRequest for clarification2019-06-25 09:18:19
Why this word was called unescape?
Usually escape function does what this word — it replaces some characters with an encoded form, and unescape function does reverse transformation — it replaces an encoded form with its original. For example, see in JavaScript, Python, Rust, T-SQL, etc.
Did the committee have examples when the conventional Forth practice for unescape word was so opposite to common usage of escape and unescape functions in many other languages?
AntonErtl
I don't remember how we came up with the name, but I think the idea was that, after processing the result with SUBSTITUTE, the % characters would not work as escapes, but be unchanged wrt the input to UNESCAPE.
IIRC we did not look at other languages when choosing this name. There was no Forth practice for UNESCAPE, and actually only single-vendor practice for SUBSTITUTE, but experiences with this kind of string processing in other contexts suggested that the SUBSTITUTE proposal was missing the UNESCAPE functionality.