Actually make a proposal for fixing it (Done: LW)
Action: AE
If we keep SAVE-INPUT RESTORE-INPUT: Tighten the specifcation along the lines of:
If the input source is a file, RESTORE-INPUT must succeed if the current input source is the same file, and fail if it’s a different file. If it’s the same file, and that file has changed in between, the result is an ambiguous condition. We also need to somehow ensure that standard programs only pass the output of SAVE-INPUT to RESTORE-INPUT (e.g., with a sys). We still need the n there so that we can use N>R and NR>.
Action: AE
Make the public aware of the CfV.
Action: AE: c.l.f, mailing list, mattermost
Action: GW: put it prominently on forth-standard.org, forthhub
Is going to be discussed at the present meeting
Proposal:
Change the proposal flow diagram as follows: add a new state called “considered” next to “Formal”. There is a transition from “Informal” to “Considered” called “Committee suggests additional work”. There is a transition from “considered” to “Informal” called “Proposal revised”. There is a transition from “Considered” to “Retired” called “Proposal abandoned”.
Vote #33 Accepted: 7Y:0:0
No progress
To be discussed at this meeting:
Memory operators
Recognizer
Standard recognizers (rec-float rec-string etc.)
standard recognizer order
Next election: 2026
2022-12-29 19:25:35 - JohanKotlinski
Just make it known, see above.
2022-08-28 19:24:27 - GeraldWodni
Keep that so that potential voters can practice if they want to.
2022-08-12 15:04:29 - ruv
Action: AE
2021-07-30 11:19:29 - UlrichHoffmann
Revise proposal considering the replies. Action: UH
2023-09-13 12:09:40 - LeonWagner
Revise. (New version by AE)
2023-09-10 17:16:18 - UlrichHoffmann
Retired. Done: LW
2023-08-04 14:24:50 - flaagel
Memory access workshop
2023-06-19 13:37:39 - StephenPelc
Memory access workshop
2023-06-19 13:36:15 - StephenPelc
Memory access workshop
2023-06-07 01:09:02 - sxjh9935
Add examples, and move to considered. Action: LW
2023-03-06 00:03:30 - ruv
Ruv revises proposal. Action: ruv. Then make it formal: Action: AE
2023-03-02 19:04:49 - ruv
Committee response and make it formal. Action: GW
2023-02-17 09:06:20 - UlrichHoffmann
Retired. Done: LW
2022-09-08 11:32:13 - UlrichHoffmann
Retired. Done: LW
2022-08-13 23:24:52 - ruv
Make it formal and post comments from the 2022 minutes. Continue to CfV. Done: AE
2022-08-13 20:16:29 - ruv
Make it formal. Action: UH
2022-08-12 14:18:35 - ruv
Make it formal. Action: UH
2022-02-15 20:00:52 - UlrichHoffmann
Retired. Done: LW
2021-09-24 11:33:41 - ruv
Accepted vote #31. Check and move to accepted. Done: AE
2021-09-14 08:55:49 - ruv
Make it formal. Action: UH
2021-09-08 10:15:49 - StephenPelc
Keep it informal, so we look at it next time again.
2021-09-01 14:46:10 - StephenPelc
Retired. Done: SP
2021-04-03 15:34:40 - AntonErtl
Make it formal. Action: UH
2020-10-29 00:28:43 - ruv
Make it formal. Done: AE
2020-09-07 13:56:43 - ruv
Recognizers workshop.
2020-09-06 09:40:07 - BerndPaysan
Recognizers workshop.
2020-08-21 21:03:51 - KrishnaMyneni
Suggest that references to wordset are removed and that the specification of MAKE-IEEE-DFLOAT is moved to the proposal section.
Once that is done, move it to Formal.
2020-08-11 21:39:27 - StephenPelc
Retired. Done: LW
2020-02-20 09:55:14 - ruv
Write a response to the latest proposal. Make it formal.
Action: AE
2019-10-08 11:01:25 - ruv
Ask for the problem description. Action: GW Once that is fixed, make it formal. Action: GW
2019-09-06 18:27:48 - AntonErtl
Make it formal. Done: GW
2019-09-06 08:24:28 - UlrichHoffmann
Revise proposal considering the replies. Action: UH
2019-07-12 04:16:14 - ruv
Concerning the Proposal [94]: Executing compilation semantics — It was accepted 10/0/1 (Yes/No/Abstain) — in voting #29, which was created on 2022-09-15, (the list of votes does not contain anchors to individual items).
Move to accepted.
Action: AE
2019-07-06 15:45:25 - AntonErtl
Retract. Action: AE
2019-03-03 06:20:52 - kc5tja
Write an answer that discusses alignment and fp locals and formal proposals. Move to Considered. Action: AE
2018-11-03 13:15:53 - ruv
Make it formal.
Action: GW
2018-09-21 06:49:42 - PeterKnaggs
Write the current procedure as new proposal or as new version of 71.
Action: LW
2018-09-06 17:19:38 - AndrewHaley
Make a workshop
2018-08-17 16:27:53 - UlrichHoffmann
Discussion. The move of file-ext S" to core-ext makes this superfluous. Uh will retract this.
2018-07-10 14:38:46 - StephenPelc
Come up with a way to add test cases to words and extract test cases for systems to run.
Action: GW
Committee reply: Action: GW
2018-06-08 10:09:18 - GerryJackson
We check SwiftForth’s implementation with the test cases (Action: LW). If it is fine, we move the proposal to formal. The proponent should fix the suggestions and then continue to CfV.
Action: AE
2017-10-25 11:35:46 - AntonErtl
Make a proper proposal with an alternative wording.
Action: AE
2017-09-03 11:07:49 - AlexDyachenko
Committee answer and move to considered.
2017-04-16 08:03:17 - AntonErtl
Check whether this is still relevant.
Action: AE
2016-12-21 14:39:40 - zhtoor
Unlikely that such a proposal will be accepted. Move to considered.
Action: AE
2016-12-12 15:42:57 - GeraldWodni
Discussion and reply. Move to considered. Action: GW
2016-09-02 16:14:36 - enoch
This idea comes up repeatedly. Suggest a more formal proposal. Mention existing practice. Move to considered.
Action: GW
2016-06-18 04:19:03 - enoch
Committee reply: Something like the IN discussed above seems to be a good solution to the original problem (Discuss Vocabularies vs. Wordlists). Move to Considered. If anyone wants to continue with this proposal, move it to informal again.
Action: AE
Presented https://gforth.org/manual/Special-Memory-Accesses.html
Make a proposal from that, but without the double words.
Description of existing recognizers. Discussion of the prefix REC-; maybe replace it with RECOGNIZE-. Discussion of the name of REC-NT; maybe use REC-NAME or REC-FIND instead.
Discussion about side effects: Recognizers may push on the data and FP stacks, and may change >IN
.
Proceed: Keep the proposal somewhat frozen for some time. Collect replies. For earlier replies, make a pointer after the latest proposal.
Action: BP