[ ] conforms to ANS Forth. VFX Forth for Windows, DOS, ... (Stephen Pelc) Forth 6 cross compilers (Stephen Pelc) Gforth (Anton Ertl) Win32Forth (Alex McDonald) BigForth (Bernd Paysan) iForth (Marcel Hendrix) SwiftForth and SwiftX (Elizabeth Rather) PFE (Guido Draheim) [ ] already implements the proposal in full since release [ ]: VFX Forth 3.2 for Windows, DOS, ... (Stephen Pelc) Forth 6 cross compilers 3.2 (Stephen Pelc) Gforth 0.6 (Anton Ertl) Win32Forth 4 (Alex McDonald) iForth 1.1 (Marcel Hendrix) SwiftForth and SwiftX 1.0 (Elizabeth Rather) 4th 3.4e (Hans Bezemer) PFE 30.11 (Oct. 2000) [ ] implements the proposal in full in a development version: [ ] will implement the proposal in full in release [ ]. [ ] will implement the proposal in full in some future release. There are no plans to implement the proposal in full in [ ]. BigForth [ ] will never implement the proposal in full:
[ ] I have used (parts of) this proposal in my programs:
Stephen Pelc
Alex McDonald
David N. Williams
Robert Epprecht
Richard Borrell
Bruce McFarling
Marcel Hendrix
Hans Bezemer
[ ] I would use (parts of) this proposal in my programs if the systems
I am interested in implemented it:
Chris Walton
David N. Williams
Marcel Hendrix
[ ] I would use (parts of) this proposal in my programs if this
proposal was in the Forth standard:
Alex McDonald
Chris Walton
David N. Williams
Bernd Paysan
Marcel Hendrix
[ ] I would not use (parts of) this proposal in my programs.
BigForth has [IFDEF] and [IFUNDEF] instead.
Problem The need for a standard word to find whether some Forth word has already been defined and is available. The usefulness of such words is indicated by how commonly they are available in one form or another (see 'Experience' below). The greatest value is probably for code expected to be run on different systems which may differ in the words they provide. Proposal [DEFINED] ( "string " -- flag ) SEARCH EXT Parse space-delimited string. Return true flag if string is the name of a word found in the current search order; otherwise return false flag. An Immediate word. [UNDEFINED] ( " string " -- flag SEARCH EXT Parse space-delimited string. Return false flag if string is the name of a word found in the current search order; otherwise return true flag. An Immediate word. Remarks The intent of the proposal is to establish a standard spelling for a word widely used and commonly available, but with varying orthography. The spelling proposed here is one of the common ones, but there are a number of others. It could be argued that adding to the Standard words so easily defined (see below) just adds unnecessary bloat. The counter argument is the convenience for someone writing code that may be used on several different systems in knowing what name is used for a common capability that may well be present. Only one of the two is needed, since the other is obtained by postpending 0=. My guess would be that [UNDEFINED] is used more often, as in the Typical use below. But if a system has room to provide one, why not both? Reference implementation : [DEFINED] BL WORD FIND NIP 0<> ; IMMEDIATE : [UNDEFINED] BL WORD FIND NIP 0= ; IMMEDIATE Typical use [UNDEFINED] 4DUP [IF] : 4DUP 2OVER 2OVER ; [THEN] Experience Common as dirt. With one spelling or another, the capability is provided in Wil Baden's Comus and toolkits and E. Rather's Forth Programmer's Handbook. Versions are included in Gforth, PFE, Bigforth and Win32Forth. I believe it is present in both SwiftForth and VFX Forth for Windows, and Stephen Pelc says it is part of the cross compiler draft standard. I'm sure there are more. The functionality is almost always equivalent to what is proposed here, so it would seem that conforming to a standard spelling should not be difficult for system developers. Comments (Summarized briefly. Details and attributions can be seen in the archives of postings to groups.yahoo.com/group/forth200x and comp.lang.forth. I find there was also a discussion of these and related words in comp.lang.forth in October, 2000, in which many of the same points were mentioned.) There will always be a risk that on an unfamiliar system, a word found might actually differ from the intended one, or a word sought might be present but not found. In the great majority of uses of [DEFINED] and [UNDEFINED] they are followed with [IF]. Thus it might be convenient to have words like [IFDEF] which incorporate the action of IF. The proposed words could be factors for these. Standardization would be convenient.
Note that you can be both a system implementor and a programmer, so you can submit both kinds of ballots.
[ ] conforms to ANS Forth. [ ] already implements the proposal in full since release [ ]. [ ] implements the proposal in full in a development version. [ ] will implement the proposal in full in release [ ]. [ ] will implement the proposal in full in some future release. There are no plans to implement the proposal in full in [ ]. [ ] will never implement the proposal in full.If you want to provide information on partial implementation, please do so informally, and I will aggregate this information in some way.
[ ] I have used (parts of) this proposal in my programs.
[ ] I would use (parts of) this proposal in my programs if the systems
I am interested in implemented it.
[ ] I would use (parts of) this proposal in my programs if this
proposal was in the Forth standard.
[ ] I would not use (parts of) this proposal in my programs.
If you feel that there is closely related functionality missing from
the proposal (especially if you have used that in your programs), make
an informal comment, and I will collect these, too. Note that the
best time to voice such issues is the RfD stage.