Notes on the 2020 Forth-200x meeting

Notes taken by M. Anton Ertl


Accept Krishna for vote? Vote #5 7Y:0N:0A

Sergey Baranov is no longer a committee member

Review of Procedures

  1. Covid consequences

    Electronic meetings

    Accepted the following amendment to the constitution (Vote #8, 12Y:0:0)

    Delete the “with the exception of the Annual General Meeting” restriction from section 5.7 of the Constitution so it reads as follows:

    “5.7. General Meetings may be virtual (e.g.,via Telephone, eMail, chat, etc.).”

  2. Brexit consequences


  3. Payment for services/licences

    No change

  4. Other

    Vote of officers in 2020

    Due to lack of secret voting: Delay until 2021 unless somebody objects


  1. Chair works

  2. Editor

    Last public version: 2018-1

    Get the document in XML with Peter Knaggs’ document type

  3. Technical

    Provide Moderator button on “Manage users”. Action: GW

    Usenet postings for postings: Only proposals. Undecided whether automated or in person.

    Mailing lists: Yahoo no longer archives the mailing lists Move the mailing list to Forth-Gesellschaft. Action: BP PK

  4. Treasurer

    No income, no expenses, balance: 0

Review of Proposals and Activities

  1. Recognisers
    Stay as experimental proposal?
    Separate POSTPONE action?
    Impact of dot parser on POSTPONE?

    Discussion without resolution. Issues:
  2. Multi-tasking from APH

    There is common practice

    Implementation on GitHub

    Formal proposal upcoming (memory model missing). Action: AH

  3. Ambiguous condition and IMMEDIATE
    TC answer by Bernd, 2019-09-12 15:19:24
    Move from RUV, any further action?

    Answer the latest reply. Action: AE

    Propose to remove the ambiguous condition (from 16.3.3) that RUV points out Vote #9: 6Y:4N:2A, i.e., not accepted (no consensus reached).

    no committee response

  4. CS-DROP from UH
    say orig and dest must be same size
    Go to vote?

    Approved by the committee. Vote #18 11Y:0N:1A

  5. Case insensitivity
    ASCII case insensitivity only.
    Go to vote?

    Go to CfV when supports it. Action: AE

  6. Remove the “rules of FIND” (BP)
    Locals word set?
    Go to vote?

    Wording change proposal was accepted: Vote #10, 10Y:0:0

  7. Reference implementation of SYNONYM (AE, RUV)
    Broken reference implementation.
    New reference implementation.

    Vote #6:

    Delete reference implementation for SYNONYM and replace with this rationale text (from original implementation):

    “The implementation of SYNONYM requires detailed knowledge of the host implementation, which is why it is standardized.”

    12Y:0:0 Accepted


    The committee felt there was no question that this is common practice, so it skipped the CfV part and went directly to committee vote.

    Vote #7:

    Adopt the latest (2020-09-01) version of the VOCABULARY proposal to the standard.

    12Y:0:0 Accepted

  9. Unfindable definitions (RUV)

    Wording change for TRAVERSE-WORDLIST to address the issue

    Vote #20: 11Y:0:0 Accepted

  10. Case sensitivity in [IF] and friends

    Reference implementation looks good. Vote #11 to accept this reference implementation: 10Y:0:0 Accepted.

  11. Clarify FIND and Clarify FIND, more classic approach

    No action, look at it again next year.


    Accepted in 2018

  13. License (JK, RUV)

    Addressed in License to use reference implementations

    Vote #19: 12Y:0:0 Accepted

  14. String, REPLACES (RUV)
    Error if macro does not exist during compilation?

    Proposed wording change in REPLACES:

    This breaks the contiguity of the current region and is not allowed during compilation of a colon definition


    Therefore REPLACES cannot be performed during compilation of a colon definition or in the middle of a contiguous region.

    Vote #14: 11Y:0N:1A Accepted

  15. Why RECURSE is needed (BI)
    Pick a TC answer.

    Request answered

  16. Input values other than true and false [IF]
    Pick flag as z/nz, vote, TC response

    Vote #16 12Y:0:0 Accepted

  17. sample implementation that can also be interpreted (MAX)
    Adopt RUV’s response as TC answer.

    ruv’s response is correct

  18. Better wording for Colon (RUV)

    Instead of the proposed wording, the committee accepted the following wording change (Vote #13: 11Y:0N:1A):

    Replace the first paragraph of 6.1.0450 : (colon)

    Skip leading space delimiters. Parse name delimited by a space. Create a definition for name, called a “colon definition”. Enter compilation state and start the current definition, producing colon-sys. Append the initiation semantics given below to the current definition.

    with the following

    Skip leading space delimiters. Parse name delimited by a space. Create a definition for name. Enter compilation state and start the current definition, producing colon-sys. Append the initiation semantics given below to the current definition.

  19. NAME>INTERPRET wording (RUV)

    To address the execution token issue, Proposal: Reword the term “execution token” was drafted. This is now up for review by the general public.

  20. The parts of execution semantics and the calling definition (RUV)

    Write a proposal eliminating initiation semantics of : and maybe other words. Action: AE

  21. Recognizer RfD rephrase 2020 (UH)
    Move to recogniser workshop

    Discussed, see point 1.

  22. “(” typo in a testcase (RUV)
    Assign to editor

    Editor fixes it. Action: PK

  23. Wording: declare undefined interpretation semantics for locals (RUV)
    Remove ambiguous conditions

    The committee accepted the following wording change (Vote #17, 12Y:0:0)

    This is true for (LOCAL) so we should add:

    local Interpretation:
    Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined.

    LOCALS| refers to (LOCAL) so (LOCAL) covers the case.

    For {: we need to add:

    name Interpretation
    The interpretation semantics of name are undefined

    then remove the ambiguous condition in name Execution.

  24. Word set of S>D word (RUV)
    Leave as is?

    Committee response

  25. Same name token for different words (RUV)

    No committee response for now

  26. Recognizer for locals (RUV)

    No committe response

  27. There is error in testing SM/REM (MB)
    Pass to editor

    Pass to editor. Action: PK

  28. Defer Implementation (Tolich)

    Committee answer

  29. Recogniser (BP)
    Move to recogniser workshop.

    Move to workshop

  30. Does wording imply that if you SYNONYM a word with the same name (JN)

    No committee response

  31. What happens when parse reaches the end of the parse area? (JN)

    Response. Action: AE

  32. TEST instead of TEAT in F.1 para 2 (JN)
    Pass to editor

    Pass to editor. Action: PK

Workshop Topics

Workshops are topics for discussion outside the formal meeting.

  1. Future Document Format

    Peter Knaggs may step down as editor. Gerald Wodni (technical director, responsible for strongly prefers staying with LaTeX. The XML format looks interesting; conversion cost, including tool conversion cost may be an issue, but there are some ideas on how to deal with it.

  2. Stack comments
    stack comments should be parseable
    Stack naming S: D: F: N: R:
    stack effect notation
    stack effect conventions

    This workshop did not happen.

  3. Test suites
    J Hayes sequencing
    G Jackson suite

    Connect with G Jackson. Action: PK

  4. Licensing

    Resulted in License to use reference implementations

    Vote #19: 12Y:0:0 Accepted

  5. CfV

    Short workshop working out how CfVs should work on

  6. Recognizers

    Some bikeshedding about names and terminology.

    Remove the opacity of rectype to allow to perform rectype dispatch with STATE @ CELLS + @ EXECUTE. This works better with the A/B POSTPONE, if you do a POSTPONE mode (]] … [[).

    Dealing with C/D POSTPONE in cross-compiling is possible (Bernd Paysan knows how to do it).

  7. Workshop reports

    See sections above

Consideration of proposals + CfV votes

See above

Matters arising

Voting on officers moved to 2021

Any other business

  1. quotations wording


  2. Reference implementation does not seem to cope with changes to the stack

    Had been withdrawn

  3. Review votes

    Close votes at the end of EuroForth

Date of next meeting

September 8-10, 2021 in Rome
September 7-9, 2021, online