Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:55:50 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: mike@smith.net.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BootFORTH - demo floppy Message-ID: <80751.914230550@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Dec 1998 00:41:02 PST." <199812210841.AAA07194@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Now, adding nulls to the end of the string is very easy with count based > strings (as long as you are not working with a substring), and I have nothing > against doing it. But having "evaluate" operate on null-terminated strings is > the same as having strncmp operate on null-terminated strings: it's against > standard and intent. I'm all in favor of pushing FICL more in the direction of standards conformance, to be sure. The I/O model in particular is rather primitive since FICL was designed specifically to chew on strings rather than be a more traditional console-based forth and I'd love to see some of that brought back. My own forth skills have seriously atrophied, unfortunately, and I'm generally not up on the newer ANS standards or even the older stuff which wasn't explicitly covered in the Brodie book. :-) If you see such conformance violations, a precise description of what the primitive should be returning or taking instead would be appreciated. Diffs to the code are, of course, appreciated even more! :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?80751.914230550>