Re: Small, understandable Forth
- From: anton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Anton Ertl)
- Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:55:07 GMT
Bruce McFarling <agila61@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
The one proposed but not yet accepted in the Forth200x process is:
"(2) Relative subdirectory support that works when a file is being
INCLUDED."
That's pretty much stalled. There is significant resistance to that
and not that much support.
The two that I've dropped from the list are:
"(5) REQUIRE ... because the library oversight system needs to know
precisely what semantics can be expected of this word.
REQUIRE is in Forth200x: http://www.forth200x.org/required.html
Do you mean to say that the semantics are not defined sufficiently?
If so, what is lacking?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2009: http://www.euroforth.org/ef09/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Small, understandable Forth
- From: Bruce McFarling
- Re: Small, understandable Forth
- References:
- Re: Small, understandable Forth
- From: Josh Grams
- Re: Small, understandable Forth
- From: Elizabeth D Rather
- Re: Small, understandable Forth
- From: Bernd Paysan
- Re: Small, understandable Forth
- From: Bruce McFarling
- Re: Small, understandable Forth
- Prev by Date: Re: Small, understandable Forth
- Next by Date: Re: Small, understandable Forth
- Previous by thread: Re: relative-to-source file names (was: Small, understandable Forth)
- Next by thread: Re: Small, understandable Forth
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|