Bruce McFarling <agila61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>On Mar 29, 4:15 pm, an...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> Bruce McFarling <agil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >If FICL is a C-based forth, it should be straightforward to add
>> >REPRESENT. sprintf itself would be the core function
>
>> REPRESENT is pretty obviously modeled after ecvt(); they missed some
>> things in the transfer, as Ed has pointed out, and they also did not
>> provide an fcvt() variant.
>
>I just looked at a page describing ecvt() and fcvt() and I don't see
>what is missing from REPRESENT
There is no way to produce a shorter or longer string (which would be
useful for Infs and NaNs). Getting an fcvt()-style result with ecvt()
or REPRESENT is complicated and inefficient.
>together with already existing CORE
>facilities if someone wants to reconstruct them.
Sure you can work around some of the missing parts. It just takes a
lot more lines than it would if they were present (take a look at the
implementation of f.rdp in
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/viewcvs/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gforth/stuff.fs?rev=1.57&view=markup>).
It also leads to proposals for "fixing" REPRESENT that break existing
code and are very bad in other respects, too.
>However, it seems that people want to have a Comus word that puts the
>pieces together in a straightforward way.
That, too, but that's a different issue.
- 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: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2008:
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef08.html
|
