Article: 67924 of comp.lang.forth
X-Received: by 10.98.25.215 with SMTP id 206mr22187829pfz.3.1467469536457;
        Sat, 02 Jul 2016 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.36.230.69 with SMTP id e66mr145596ith.0.1467469536367; Sat,
 02 Jul 2016 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!r1no9167158ige.0!news-out.google.com!o189ni15057ith.0!nntp.google.com!jk6no9142280igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 07:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:380:5566:dda9:e5f5:a7e0:cdc:610d;
 posting-account=KeQULQoAAABcQBGYu2d-i2T2PVg2ZMR6
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:380:5566:dda9:e5f5:a7e0:cdc:610d
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0bfcdb36-eaf0-4634-8820-049911494e85@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention
From: krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2016 14:25:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 55
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.forth:67924

RfD: Unsigned Double Words Naming Convention

v1 : 2 July 2016  km


Problem:
---------

ANS Forth presently provides a single word for operating on unsigned double=
 length integers, DU< , within the double number extensions wordset. Other =
standard words for operating on unsigned double numbers in Forth are desire=
d to be added to standard Forth (Forth 20xx standard), e.g. a word to print=
 an unsigned double. A consistent naming convention , compatible with commo=
nly used practice is highly desirable to alleviate the burden on the progra=
mmer from having to remember multiple conventions when working with future =
standardized words.


Solution:
---------

A consistent naming convention for unsigned double number words presents tw=
o options currently in use: 1) DU<x> or 2) UD<x> , where <x> represents an =
operation. Based on existing practice and comments made on comp.lang.forth,=
 the second convention, UD<x> , appears to be preferred. Several arguments =
may be made in favor of this convention: a) unsigned double numbers are typ=
ically represented in stack diagrams as ud1 ud2 ... etc, b) the term "unsig=
ned double" is easier to associate with the desired data type than the term=
, "double unsigned", 3) implementation of non-standard words in existing Fo=
rth systems indicates a preference for UD<x>.=20


Proposal:
--------

Introduce a synonym, UD< , into the Forth 20xx standard for the existing st=
andard word DU< and deprecate the use of DU< .

Reference Implementation:
------------------------

: UD< ( ud1 ud2 -- b )  DU< ;


Existing Practice:
---------------

Several Forth systems, e.g. Gforth and iForth, provide the presently non-st=
andard  word UD. for printing an unsigned double to the console, which is i=
nconsistent with the convention implied by the standard word DU< . SwiftFor=
th provides DU. for the same purpose, which makes it consistent with the na=
ming precedent set by DU< .=20



Krishna Myneni