RfD: Escaped Strings version 4

forth

    Next

  • 1. Forth word REFILL
    I was looking at a Forth listing and came across the word REFILL. Now coming for the Jupiter Ace acrchive site we usr AceForth and there is no REFILL word. REFILL is not defined in the listing so I guess it must be from an ANSI form of Forth (MMS-Forth ?) My Question is what its its task or function?
  • 2. Forth and Suicide
    On Aug 2, 5:22m, Jason Damisch < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote: > Hi, > > This is Jason > > I wrote a text editor using SwiftForth. here are alot of things that > I want to do to improve my text editor. ne thing is that I would > like it to handle unicode. am curious to know what might be > entailed in this. I would for starters like to be able to accept >> unicode input, like from cut and paste, paste it into my text editor, >> and then be able to output it again, like to another file or maybe >> print it. would also like to be able to display the unicode >> properly. >> >> all the best Well, just be aware that everything hat to support UTF8 or what you mean as base encoding in unicode ;) Btw.: I do think your investigations are bad. Cairo (the 2D graphics library) for example does Unicode very well. Of course you do not need to use this (well, as everything this has a lot of bugs). But, hey, if "Swift" does not help, help yourself. -Helmar
  • 3. 64 by 32 bit division
    Hi all, I've read a lot of thread before but I've not seen an answer to my question. Is there an unsigned 64 by 32 (or 48) bit division? I've seen a lot of routines for multiply a 48bit with a 16 bit number ( UTM* ) or 32bit * 32 bit ( UDDM* ) with a 64 bits result but never a division. Any suggestion on what I'm trying to do? Thanks in advance -- Ciao da Stefano "Non c'cattivo picattivo di quando un buono diventa cattivo!" Bud Spencer

Re: RfD: Escaped Strings version 4

Postby anton » Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:52:42 GMT

Peter Knaggs < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:



"Although" sounds as if there would be a conflict, but there isn't.


In C it is.  However, the proposal does not specify octal notation for
characters, so in Forth it would not be.  We still might want to
support \0 without supporting octal notation, for the reasons given
above.


Not really.  In particular, it has not lead to such consequences in C,
it conflicts with octal notation in C, and we (and C) already have
\x<h><h> for hex.


In that case I suggest adding a reference to 3.2.1.2.


In that case we would change it in 3.2.1.2.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl   http://www.**--****.com/ 
comp.lang.forth FAQs:  http://www.**--****.com/ 
     New standard:  http://www.**--****.com/ 
   EuroForth 2007:  http://www.**--****.com/ 


Return to forth

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guest