Ed wrote:
> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote in message
news:CtqdndH6L_rp2ljaRVn_vwA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I have been reading the source code and docs for an unreleased
>> operating system / programming language. The author was rather
>> strongly influenced by the books Starting Forth and Thinking
>> Forth (which I gave him). The problem is that at times he
>> writes things like this: "Unlike Forth, which has [attribute A],
>> this new language has [attribute B]" which are true about the
>> Forth described in those two books, but not true of Forth in
>> general. What I need in order to properly proofread/edit those
>> statements is a modifier. Something like "One early Forth" or
>> "Classic Forth" or some such. My question is, what wording
>> should I suggest?
>
> The current standard is Forth-94 thus I would avoid any reference
> to earlier or divergent forths as it will only confuse.
>
> The reader is presumably interested in the language at hand,
> therefore stick to what the language does - not how it differs.
> It's ok to warn the user in the introduction e.g. "... this language
> differs from Forth" but specific details [if necessary at all]
> are best left to a reference section e.g. glossary or a separate
> chapter, where it is out of the way. Good luck.
I see 3 categories of issues:
1. Features of Forth that are still in Forth but not in the new language
(e.g. direct use of the stack -- note, I have absolutely no knowlege of
what the new language does or doesn't have, this is just an example).
In that case, "Unlike Forth, which has [attribute A], this new language
has [attribute B]" is just fine.
2. Features of Forth that were widespread before Forth94 and are
included therein, but are not common today (e.g. disk blocks/screens).
3. Features of Forth that changed significantly with Forth94 (e.g. hard
requirement for 16-bit cell size).
IMO "Early versions of Forth..." is the best phrasing for both 2 & 3. I
don't like "Classic Forth" because it suggest that these features may be
in common use today.
Since both SF and TF strove to reference common practice when they were
written, things that apply to "one early version" are unlikely to be
referenced in this work.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310-491-3356
5155 W. Rosecrans Ave. #1018 Fax: +1 310-978-9454
Hawthorne, CA 90250
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
|
