The official extension known to a linux system (make) are:

.out .a .ln .o .c .cc .C .cpp .p .f .F .m .r .y .l .ym .yl .s .S .mod
.sym .def .h .info .dvi .tex .texinfo .texi .txinfo .w .ch .web .sh
.elc .el .out .a .ln .o .c .cc .C .cpp .p .f .F .m .r .y .l .ym .yl .s
.S .mod .sym .def .h .info .dvi .tex .texinfo .texi .txinfo .w .ch
.web .sh .elc .el

There is no extension for Forth files. Moreover .f .F have been taken
for FORTRAN.
Note that there is no extension for Python. Apparently if you have given
up compiling to executables, you don't register with make. All the same
there is a de facto extension for Python that is py and half-compiled .pyc.

For Forth we've seen: .f .F .frt .FRT .fth .4th .fs
Are there more?

I'd like to see an official extension. This would help with uniformization
of the Forth language and finding forth sources on the web.
For example build in rules to go from a source
to an executable, or syntax coloring in editors.

The gforth authors have the most influence in GNU linux. Unfortunately
they seem to use the .f suffix exclusively. Would they push for an
official extension?
gforth also uses .fs for non forth files, scripts, while others use it
for plain Forth files.

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring. - the Wise from Antrim -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

peter.m.falth@gmail.com (PMF) writes:

I have always used .4
I must have picked this up over 30 years ago. I do not remember where.
I like it. It is short and different.

locate \*.4|wc -l

reports 3912 file names that end in .4 (and very few of them are Forth
files). Most are file names with version numbers that end in .4, some
of them .so*.4 files, others are directories. There are also man
pages from section 4 that end in .4.

.4th is a little longer, but of the 903 files on my system all are
Forth files as far as I can see; so it's really different.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

For Forth we've seen: .f .F .frt .FRT .fth .4th .fs
Are there more?

I'd like to see an official extension.

At the 2015 Forth200x meeting we decided on ".4th", and that has been
added to the extensions that VFX knows about <2016Mar29.122333@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>. And indeed:

[/tmp:149794] echo 'cr .( hi) cr' >foo.4th
[/tmp:149795] vfx64 "include foo"
VFX Forth 64 5.43 [build 0199] 2023-11-09 for Linux x64
© MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd, 1998-2023

Including foo.4th
hi

bye

It does not work for sf64, while "include f" works for foo.f.

Gforth does not know anything about extensions, so you always have to
mention the extension explicitly.

theforth.net requires the metadata in package.4th.

The gforth authors have the most influence in GNU linux. Unfortunately
they seem to use the .f suffix exclusively.

What makes you think so? Why would Gforth contain Fortran programs?

gforth also uses .fs for non forth files,

Examples?

scripts

Sure, why not.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/06/2024 2:11 am, Anton Ertl wrote:

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

For Forth we've seen: .f .F .frt .FRT .fth .4th .fs
Are there more?

I'd like to see an official extension.

At the 2015 Forth200x meeting we decided on ".4th", and that has been
added to the extensions that VFX knows about

The question surely is whether VFX uses it. AFAICS it continues
to use .fth for all its source files.

[/usr/local/src/VfxForth64Lin-5.43:149811] find . -name \*.4th|wc -l
4
[/usr/local/src/VfxForth64Lin-5.43:149812] find . -name \*.fth|wc -l
275

But no, that was not the question. The question was about an
"official" extension, and as far as the Forth200x committee is
concerned, .4th is the official extension. Of course that does not
mean that other extensions are forbidden. And actually the standard
document does not mention extensions at all.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <2024Jun4.181145@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

For Forth we've seen: .f .F .frt .FRT .fth .4th .fs
Are there more?

I'd like to see an official extension.

At the 2015 Forth200x meeting we decided on ".4th", and that has been
added to the extensions that VFX knows about ><2016Mar29.122333@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>. And indeed:

I wasn't aware of that this decision. Are there any influentual
people (GNU;s, professors) that could promote this extension with
distribution, in particular make ?

<SNIP>

Including foo.4th
hi

bye

gforth also uses .fs for non forth files,

Examples?

scripts

Sure, why not.

This reaction puzzles me.
Is it possible that .fs are actually forth source files, that
can only be interpreted by gforth? Why then change the extension?

(A proper script file has extension .sh and start with e.g.
#!/usr/bin/lina )

- anton

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring. - the Wise from Antrim -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <66605182$1@news.ausics.net>, dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/06/2024 8:17 pm, Anton Ertl wrote:

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/06/2024 2:11 am, Anton Ertl wrote:

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

For Forth we've seen: .f .F .frt .FRT .fth .4th .fs
Are there more?

I'd like to see an official extension.

At the 2015 Forth200x meeting we decided on ".4th", and that has been
added to the extensions that VFX knows about

The question surely is whether VFX uses it. AFAICS it continues
to use .fth for all its source files.

[/usr/local/src/VfxForth64Lin-5.43:149811] find . -name \*.4th|wc -l
4
[/usr/local/src/VfxForth64Lin-5.43:149812] find . -name \*.fth|wc -l
275

But no, that was not the question. The question was about an
"official" extension, and as far as the Forth200x committee is
concerned, .4th is the official extension. Of course that does not
mean that other extensions are forbidden. And actually the standard
document does not mention extensions at all.

Well that makes it ok then. The Forth200x committee has nominated
an "official extension" that's little more than a flag users can
wave about when they feel like it.

It could be much more. If lina is the official Forth compiler installed
and you have hello.4th
you could say
make hello
That would be similar as having hello.c and saying
make hello

Delivering syntax coloring to editors could be the next step.

Groetjes Albert




--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring. - the Wise from Antrim -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <1bccca9c48450daa05a878c4c84e72de@www.novabbs.com>,
LIT <zbigniew2011@gmail.com> wrote:

Delivering syntax coloring to editors could be the next step.

Forth actually has no syntax...

Good point. Coloring is still useful. https://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/forthlectureE.html

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring. - the Wise from Antrim -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,
I sometimes use notepad++ and there is highlighting for gforth .fs
scripts.
It works like this:

for example:
: do-it ( doing test ) 10 0 do cr i . 2 spaces ." It is done!" loop ; \
and that works

is colored as follows:

: do-it ---red
( doing test ) ---green
10 0 ---light blue
do cr i . ---black
2 ---light blue
spaces ---black
" It is done!" ---orange
loop ---black
; ---red
\ that works ---green


: go { a b -- } a b + . ;

{ a b -- } ---blue

and : A B C D E F a b c d e f --- in light blue (but when used with
G...Z g...z it is in black)
G ...Z g ...z --- in black

I don't know how it is configured to do this.

Ahmed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Under windows, I found these two xml files: langs.xml and stylers.xml
located in the "AppData\Roaming\Notepad++" dirctory.

The first contains the languages and their keywords.
the second contains the correspondant styles (colors,...).

and the language forth is considered in these two files.

Ahmed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 15:38:35 +0000
melahi_ahmed@yahoo.fr (Ahmed) wrote:

Hi,
I sometimes use notepad++ and there is highlighting for gforth .fs
scripts.
It works like this:

for example:
: do-it ( doing test ) 10 0 do cr i . 2 spaces ." It is done!" loop ; \
and that works

is colored as follows:

: do-it ---red
( doing test ) ---green
10 0 ---light blue
do cr i . ---black
2 ---light blue
spaces ---black
" It is done!" ---orange
loop ---black
; ---red
\ that works ---green

: go { a b -- } a b + . ;

{ a b -- } ---blue

and : A B C D E F a b c d e f --- in light blue (but when used with

(identified as hex,chars, and coloured same as numeric 0-9, I'd imagine)

G...Z g...z it is in black)
G ...Z g ...z --- in black

I don't know how it is configured to do this.

Language, User-defined , erm dont know after that

I'm more of a Notepad2 user. (View Customise Schemes ..)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

ISTM .4th is a
solution looking for a problem. Given nobody else appears to be using it, >none has been found?

File extensions are used by various tools for recognizing whether a
file contains Forth source code, most notably editors, but also
Makefiles and line-counting tools. Some Forth systems try to use file extensions for including files (e.g., VFX tries .4th (and probably
also .fth), and SwiftForth tries .f), so you don't have to write the
file extension when using INCLUDE or REQUIRE.

Concerning Makefiles, I find several occurences of "%.fs" (where "5"
is a placeholder for a specific name) in Gforth's Makefile, among them
this rule:

$(buildccdir)/libgf%.la: unix/%.fs $(FORTH_GEN_LIGHT) $(GEN) $(LIBCC_LIB_SRC) libforth
@echo LIBFORTH $<
-./libforth $(package)$(libccdir) $< -e bye
-$(TOUCH) $@

Here unix/%.fs is a file containing Forth code that describes the
interface to C library code, and $(buildccdir)/libgf%.la is the file
that describes the corresponding binary files for libtool dynamic
linking.

Why %.fs and not %.4th? We started with this stuff before the decision
on .4th as common extension, and renaming the interface files would
break code that includes them.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

It could be much more. If lina is the official Forth compiler installed
and you have hello.4th
you could say
make hello
That would be similar as having hello.c and saying
make hello

What do you mean with "official Forth compiler installed"? In order
for something like this to work, Forth systems would also need to
agree on a common OS-command-line interface.

Delivering syntax coloring to editors could be the next step.

Various editors have had syntax highlighting for Forth code for many
years. I use emacs, and gforth.el's Forth mode (based on Goran
Rydqvist's forth.el) has had syntax highlighting for a long time; here
we have it:

|commit a0117f0158a4cb57bcd61c03cd3285508cae229c
|Author: Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
|Date: Sat Mar 18 21:27:38 2000 +0000
|
| Added syntax highlighting for Forth (not perfect yet)

When my students present their programs, they usually use code (the
one by MS) or vim, and both have syntax highlighting for Forth; in
some cases the syntax highlighting seems to be for a different
language, though. I guess this is the use of file extensions with the
highest impact in practice. So what file extensions do the editors
use?

When you have the development version of Gforth installed, you get:

emacs: .fs .fth .4th .fb (where .fb is for block files)

I leave it to other participants to list the extensions that turn on
Forth syntax highlighting for their favourite editor.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <2024Jun6.081646@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

It could be much more. If lina is the official Forth compiler installed
and you have hello.4th
you could say
make hello
That would be similar as having hello.c and saying
make hello

What do you mean with "official Forth compiler installed"? In order
for something like this to work, Forth systems would also need to
agree on a common OS-command-line interface.

An additional benefit, yes.

<SNIP>

When you have the development version of Gforth installed, you get:

emacs: .fs .fth .4th .fb (where .fb is for block files)

Nice. I see that you refrain from using the .f extension lest
emacs think you are using FORTRAN.

Reminds me that it is common to use .blk for block files.

<SNIP>

- anton

--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring. - the Wise from Antrim -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:

In article <2024Jun6.081646@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

When you have the development version of Gforth installed, you get:

emacs: .fs .fth .4th .fb (where .fb is for block files)

Nice. I see that you refrain from using the .f extension lest
emacs think you are using FORTRAN.

Yes, we also don't use .f, but we also don't add it to the list as
indication for Forth mode, because that would conflict with the
existing use for Fortran. I don't know exactly what would happen, but
one of the possible outcomes would be that someone wants to edit a
Fortran file with the extension .f, and gets Forth mode instead of
Fortran mode. I think that would lead to complaints about Gforth's
installer sooner or later.

Reminds me that it is common to use .blk for block files.

Various file-extension web sites list lots of file types that use
.blk, but I have not seen Forth block files there. .fb also has some
other uses, so it's not ideal. But then, who cares about Forth block
files nowadays? Probably not even those who think that any agreement
is a loss of freedom, because those tend not to use the rigid imposed
structure of a file system in the first place.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

and
fs for F# files

Ahmed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

The official extension known to a linux system (make) are:

I use make to assemble my assembly level portion of Forth which
files have the known .s file-type. I also use make to build
extended Forths with file-types .f .fb etc. that it doesn't need
to know as the file parts and paths are provided in variables that
it happily processes.

My extensions:
s assembly source (Linux convention)
sh shell program (Linux convention)
fs Forth system source
The few extensions to the assembled code to give the
Forth its character (e.g turns FIG into a TOAD)
f General Forth extensions (of the character type).
fb Block file source
Main block file library
scr block file
Legacy block files
pac pack files (sequence file conversion of a block file)
d document (mime type: text/x-rsml)
rcd record file (mime type: text/x-rsml, Record simple markup)


Note:
Linux provides various dot files for user to use his own
file-type mappings that overrides (registered) defaults.

In .vim for color syntax I have the following set
for Forth: .f .fs .fb .seq .4th .fth
I don't use FORTRAN so no conflict but wouldn't have one if I did.
Magic and mime can be used in manner to bypass file extension.

In .mimi.types I only needed settings for: .fb .scr

In lessfilter only: .fb .scr
(This is nice, any block file of .fb or .scr is auto-converted, using
dd, for display as a sequence file.)

I still use the .sh for shell scripts even though it doesn't
distinguish between Dash and Bash (which one is being used sometimes
makes a difference, but I somehow get around it.)

My Forths are in constant flux (shifting sands). I haven't updated
color syntax in a decade. What's there or not doesn't bother me.

A thought: If a standard set of extensions become a reality,
just soft link all the legacy files.

--
me

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)