2019 Forth 200x Meeting Notes

Attendance:

2 Review of Procedures

Remote observers: No, because committee members want to freely speak their mind, and need to know who observes. The prospect of being recorded was seen as particularly problematic.

2a) (SFP) The meeting minutes are not detailed enough for people who did not participate in the meeting.

Needs volunteers, but we will try to be more verbose.

2b) (SFP) GW should put the meeting agendas and minutes at forth-standard.org

2c) (SFP) Other actions to migrate forth200x.org to forth-standard.org have not been implemented.

Workshop on forth-standard.org and forth200x.org integration. GW, AE, PK

First part already done: https://github.com/Forth-Standard/forth200x

2d) (PJK et al) Move updated proposal process to document.

Both the 2018 and 2019 meeting results will be integrated into the document in one step.

2e) CfV on forth-standard.org

Still to be done

2f) Vote to accept 2018 minutes

7A:0N:2A (abstentions due to non-attendance in 2018)

2g) Brexit Consequences

Take action when needed (and not before)

3 Reports

3a) Chair

No electronic meeting

3b) Editor

See 2d. There is https://github.com/Forth-Standard/forth-standard

3c) Technical

A few improvents have been implemented, more to come.

3d) Treasurer

Balance: 0, no income, no expenses

4 Review of Proposals and Activities

4a) Recognizers

For personal reasons Matthias Trute cannot continue. BP is picking up the proposal.

Postpone action discussion: Workshop: BP, SP, AE

4b) Multi-tasking

Discussion of the initialization of UVALUEs: Initialize by cloning an existing task, not by a HIS-like mechanism.

Contact Andrew Haley (SP). Workshop topic (pretty much everyone)

4c) External Functions

Workshop where GW explains the SWIG approach: Instead of doing a lot in Forth, do a lot in SWIG, and the result provides everything that Forth needs.

4d) From forth-standard.org

BL Rationale: GW volunteers for rewording

4e) Proposal for source-relative filenames

Presentation from GW (in workshop). Committee encourages: Move to proposal

4f) Internationalisation

Discussion of character sets. Discussion of language and country.

4g) from forth-standard.org:

ALSO without VOCABULARY

Proposal for >ORDER AE

Proposal for VOCABULARY UH

Response on behalf of the committee AE

Should TO be findable?

Related to Clarify FIND

In addition, make a proposal to fix the shortcomings pointed out by Ruvim: execution token AE

Case sensitivity, Case insensitivity

Discuss them, finally do CfV

[ELSE] without preceding [IF]

Write a rationale why this is a bad idea BP

[if] and [else] parse white space - including comments

Discuss in the rationale the caveats of the interaction of parsing words and [else], [if], [then] etc.

Changes to [ELSE] and [IF] rationale 10Y:0:0

F>R and FR> to support dynamically-scoped floating point variables

AE: Write a reply inquiring about existing practice, wheter FP locals have more existing practice, and possibly turning it into a proper proposal.

Flocals F: proposal to bewritten by SP

add [ notation for locals to Gforth BP

The case of undefined interpretation semantics

BP will write a proposal for fixing this issue

Interpretation semantics

AE: write a proposal to define interpretation semantics of COMPILE,

Terminology and wording regarding "dictionary"

AE: write a reply, suggesting that ruv writes proposals; Renaming "name space" to "header space" should find consensus Some committee members are nervous about touching dictionary

Ambiguous condition could be removed

PK: Write on the committee's behalf

GNU C RESTRICT would make sense in the standard

PK: Wrote a reply on the committee's behalf

CS-DROP

UH: Adjust proposal to allow exactly one use of orig. Proceed to CfV.

4h) Further forth-standard.org contributions:

For this part I (AE) presented the contributions to the committee, so I noted only those parts where the committee voted and those where I should take an action. The Minutes should contain more about this.

Behavior when no text found

AE: Make a proposal to make it explicit

Revise Rationale of Buffer:

Committee vote on this wording change: 0Y:5N:4A

Executing compilation semantics

Accepted 9Y:0N:1A

description of "nt" in the standard

Move the definition of "name token" from 15.3 to 15.2 8Y:0N:0A

Coming out of that:

Definition of "search order" and rewording of [defined] and [undefined] 9Y:0:0

6) Workshops

Clarify find

Move to CfV

Header flags

Discussion

forth-standard.org

Discuss ways to avoid overloading the committee. Closing (with the option to reopen) a contribution would take it off the ToDo list of the committee. If a committee member replies to a requests for clarification, he will normally close the contribution.