Forth 200x meeting 2023-09-13 to 2023-09-15 in Rome




Review of the minutes

N>R NR> discussion from last meeting

Actually make a proposal for fixing it (Done: LW)

PICK #277 and ROLL #276

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

Relax documentation requirements #272

Make the public aware of the CfV.

Action: AE: c.l.f, mailing list, mattermost

Action: GW: put it prominently on, forthhub

Memory access stuff

Is going to be discussed at the present meeting

Review of Procedures

Proposal flow diagram


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

Draft Document

No progress

What are additional topics for future standardisation?

To be discussed at this meeting:


Election of officers

Next election: 2026

Review of proprosals in state CfV

[272] Relax documentation requirements of Ambiguous Conditions (relax-documentation-requirements-of-ambiguous-conditions #272)

2022-12-29 19:25:35 - JohanKotlinski

Just make it known, see above.

[263] Test Proposal (test-proposal #263)

2022-08-28 19:24:27 - GeraldWodni

Keep that so that potential voters can practice if they want to.

Review of proposals in the state formal

[250] Formatting: spaces in data type symbols (formatting-spaces-in-data-type-symbols #250)

2022-08-12 15:04:29 - ruv

Action: AE

[206] PLACE +PLACE (place-place #206)

2021-07-30 11:19:29 - UlrichHoffmann

Revise proposal considering the replies. Action: UH

Proposals in the state informal

[307] Fix stack comments for N>R and NR> (fix-stack-comments-for-n-r-and-nr- #307)

2023-09-13 12:09:40 - LeonWagner

Revise. (New version by AE)

[306] 2023 Standards meeting agenda (2023-09-13 to 2023-09-15) (2023-standards-meeting-agenda-2023-09-13-to-2023-09-15- #306)

2023-09-10 17:16:18 - UlrichHoffmann

Retired. Done: LW

[305] Include a revised 79-STANDARD Specification for “><” To “Core Ext” (include-a-revised-79-standard-specification-for-to-core-ext- #305)

2023-08-04 14:24:50 - flaagel

Memory access workshop

[302] 32-bit memory operators (32-bit-memory-operators #302)

2023-06-19 13:37:39 - StephenPelc

Memory access workshop

[301] 16-bit memory access (16-bit-memory-access #301)

2023-06-19 13:36:15 - StephenPelc

Memory access workshop

[299] 2C! and 2C@ (2c-and-2c- #299)

2023-06-07 01:09:02 - sxjh9935

Add examples, and move to considered. Action: LW

[292] Update rationale for SLITERAL (update-rationale-for-sliteral #292)

2023-03-06 00:03:30 - ruv

Ruv revises proposal. Action: ruv. Then make it formal: Action: AE

[291] Obsolescence for SAVE-INPUT and RESTORE-INPUT (obsolescence-for-save-input-and-restore-input #291)

2023-03-02 19:04:49 - ruv

Committee response and make it formal. Action: GW

[286] Agenda Forth-200x interim Meeting 2023-02-17T15:00Z (agenda-forth-200x-interim-meeting-2023-02-17t15-00z #286)

2023-02-17 09:06:20 - UlrichHoffmann

Retired. Done: LW

[269] 2022 Standards meeting agenda (2022-standards-meeting-agenda #269)

2022-09-08 11:32:13 - UlrichHoffmann

Retired. Done: LW

[252] Exclude zero from the data types that are identifiers (exclude-zero-from-the-data-types-that-are-identifiers #252)

2022-08-13 23:24:52 - ruv

Make it formal and post comments from the 2022 minutes. Continue to CfV. Done: AE

[251] Clarification for execution token (clarification-for-execution-token #251)

2022-08-13 20:16:29 - ruv

Make it formal. Action: UH

[249] Revert rewording the term “execution token” (revert-rewording-the-term-execution-token- #249)

2022-08-12 14:18:35 - ruv

Make it formal. Action: UH

[220] Agenda Forth-200x interim Meeting 2020-02-18T14:00Z (agenda-forth-200x-interim-meeting-2020-02-18t14-00z #220)

2022-02-15 20:00:52 - UlrichHoffmann

Retired. Done: LW

[215] Better wording for “Glossary notation” (better-wording-for-glossary-notation- #215)

2021-09-24 11:33:41 - ruv

Accepted vote #31. Check and move to accepted. Done: AE

[214] Better wording for “data field” term (better-wording-for-data-field-term #214)

2021-09-14 08:55:49 - ruv

Make it formal. Action: UH

[212] Tick and undefined execution semantics - 2 (tick-and-undefined-execution-semantics-2 #212)

2021-09-08 10:15:49 - StephenPelc

Keep it informal, so we look at it next time again.

[210] 2021 Standards meeting agenda (2021-standards-meeting-agenda #210)

2021-09-01 14:46:10 - StephenPelc

Retired. Done: SP

[184] EMIT and non-ASCII values (emit-and-non-ascii-values #184)

2021-04-03 15:34:40 - AntonErtl

Make it formal. Action: UH

[163] Tick and undefined execution semantics (tick-and-undefined-execution-semantics #163)

2020-10-29 00:28:43 - ruv

Make it formal. Done: AE

[161] Common terminology for recognizers discurse and specifications (common-terminology-for-recognizers-discurse-and-specifications #161)

2020-09-07 13:56:43 - ruv

Recognizers workshop.

[160] minimalistic core API for recognizers (minimalistic-core-api-for-recognizers #160)

2020-09-06 09:40:07 - BerndPaysan

Recognizers workshop.

[148] OPTIONAL IEEE 754 BINARY FLOATING-POINT WORD SET (optional-ieee-754-binary-floating-point-word-set #148)

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.

Action: AE

[146] 2020 Forth Standards meeting agenda (2020-forth-standards-meeting-agenda #146)

2020-08-11 21:39:27 - StephenPelc

Retired. Done: LW

[129] NAME>INTERPRET wording (name-interpret-wording #129)

2020-02-20 09:55:14 - ruv

Write a response to the latest proposal. Make it formal.

Action: AE

[122] Clarify FIND, more classic approach (clarify-find-more-classic-approach #122)

2019-10-08 11:01:25 - ruv

Ask for the problem description. Action: GW Once that is fixed, make it formal. Action: GW

[114] Case insensitivity (case-insensitivity #114)

2019-09-06 18:27:48 - AntonErtl

Make it formal. Action: GW

[113] CS-DROP (revised 2019-08-22) (cs-drop-revised-2019-08-22- #113)

2019-09-06 08:24:28 - UlrichHoffmann

Revise proposal considering the replies. Action: UH

[94] Executing compilation semantics (executing-compilation-semantics #94)

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

[90] Revise Rationale of Buffer: (revise-rationale-of-buffer- #90)

2019-07-06 15:45:25 - AntonErtl

Retract. Action: AE

[75] F>R and FR> to support dynamically-scoped floating point variables (f-r-and-fr-to-support-dynamically-scoped-floating-point-variables #75)

2019-03-03 06:20:52 - kc5tja

Write an answer that discusses alignment and fp locals and formal proposals. Move to Considered. Action: AE

[73] Case sensitivity (case-sensitivity #73)

2018-11-03 13:15:53 - ruv

Make it formal.

Action: GW

[71] Revised Proposal Process (revised-proposal-process #71)

2018-09-21 06:49:42 - PeterKnaggs

Write the current procedure as new proposal or as new version of 71.

Action: LW

[67] Multi-Tasking Proposal (multi-tasking-proposal #67)

2018-09-06 17:19:38 - AndrewHaley

Make a workshop

[65] S( “Request for Discussion” (revised 2018-08-16) (s-request-for-discussion-revised-2018-08-16- #65)

2018-08-17 16:27:53 - UlrichHoffmann

Discussion. The move of file-ext S" to core-ext makes this superfluous. Uh will retract this.

Done: UH

[63] Let us adopt the Gerry Jackson test suite as part of Forth 200x (let-us-adopt-the-gerry-jackson-test-suite-as-part-of-forth-200x #63)

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

[60] Tighten the specification of SYNONYM (version 1) (tighten-the-specification-of-synonym-version-1- #60)

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

[34] BL rationale is wrong (bl-rationale-is-wrong #34)

2017-10-25 11:35:46 - AntonErtl

Make a proper proposal with an alternative wording.

Action: AE

[32] The value of STATE should be restored (the-value-of-state-should-be-restored #32)

2017-09-03 11:07:49 - AlexDyachenko

Committee answer and move to considered.

Done: UH

[29] Core-ext S&quot; should reference File-ext S&quot; (core-ext-s-should-reference-file-ext-s- #29)

2017-04-16 08:03:17 - AntonErtl

Check whether this is still relevant.

Action: AE

[26] Implementations requiring BOTH 32 bit single floats and 64 bit double floats. (implementations-requiring-both-32-bit-single-floats-and-64-bit-double-floats- #26)

2016-12-21 14:39:40 - zhtoor

Unlikely that such a proposal will be accepted. Move to considered.

Action: AE

[25] Directory experiemental proposal (directory-experiemental-proposal #25)

2016-12-12 15:42:57 - GeraldWodni

Discussion and reply. Move to considered. Action: GW

[22] DEFER this not :-) (defer-this-not- #22)

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

[20] WLSCOPE – wordlists switching made easier (wlscope-wordlists-switching-made-easier #20)

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


Memory access


Make a proposal from that, but without the double words.

Action: AE


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

Date of next meeting