1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.LANG.FORTH

  • Re: Standard compliance for systems

    From minforth@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 22 10:11:48 2024
    Must be bad weather and boring where you live. ;-)
    If you have a lot of strings to juggle, treat yourself
    to a string stack. Forth is all about flexibility, right?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mhx@21:1/5 to minforth on Fri Nov 22 11:35:01 2024
    On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:11:48 +0000, minforth wrote:
    [..]
    If you have a lot of strings to juggle, treat yourself
    to a string stack. Forth is all about flexibility, right?

    When parsing commands for my engineering tools, strings
    are indispensable. But I use a ringbuffer, not a stack.

    Nowadays I tend to use temporary redirection of I/O to
    (large) strings with <$$ ... $$> ( -- c-addr u ). For
    short sequences nothing beats $+ .

    -marcel

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From minforth@21:1/5 to mhx on Fri Nov 22 13:11:32 2024
    On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:35:01 +0000, mhx wrote:
    When parsing commands for my engineering tools, strings
    are indispensable. But I use a ringbuffer, not a stack.

    A ring buffer for holding strings is a classic for Forth
    systems. For larger string sequences, such as data in XML
    format, ring buffers tend to be overwritten. But that's
    an application-sprecific implementation detail, not a
    topic for a standard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mhx@21:1/5 to minforth on Fri Nov 22 15:26:12 2024
    On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 13:11:32 +0000, minforth wrote:

    On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:35:01 +0000, mhx wrote:
    When parsing commands for my engineering tools, strings
    are indispensable. But I use a ringbuffer, not a stack.

    A ring buffer for holding strings is a classic for Forth
    systems. For larger string sequences, such as data in XML
    format, ring buffers tend to be overwritten. But that's
    an application-sprecific implementation detail, not a
    topic for a standard.

    Ring buffers should manage their pool appropriately. That's
    a quality of implementation aspect. Slightly more dangerous
    is using their strings permanently. It assumes quality at
    the other side of the keyboard.

    -marcel

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl@21:1/5 to dxforth@gmail.com on Sat Nov 23 14:09:17 2024
    In article <8b00c0b3ab87b7154adc00d7fe89bde6817367b5@i2pn2.org>,
    dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 22/11/2024 9:11 pm, minforth wrote:
    Must be bad weather and boring where you live. ;-)

    You're welcome :)

    If you have a lot of strings to juggle, treat yourself
    to a string stack. Forth is all about flexibility, right?

    A relative never cleaned their email inbox. For the last
    month any message sent bounced with 'mailbox full'. Their
    solution was to pay for a bigger inbox.

    If you set aside 1 Gbyte of a 8 Gbyte for a circular string
    stack, why don't you do like me? Permanently allocate all
    strings in the dictionary. This is a so called memory leak,
    but this is not so bad compared to wasting 1 Gbyte up front.
    Works well together with MARKER, I'd see better than a circular
    string set.

    Groetjes Albert

    --
    Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
    Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
    Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
    And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

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