Forth seems to still - after all these years - subscribe to the idea that if one standard is good, then many must be better :-(.
Forth79, Forth83, ANS and probably a few more defacto standards.
Currently the system is based on eForth and should match those definitions, but that might not be the best solution.
I propose adding some vocabularies that can be used to switch between standards so that a package could for example goANS at the top and then write in ANS forth. It might not be perfect, but I'm guessing the breaking differences are minor. (e.g. the presence or absence of a word doesn't break anything - just add the word - but the same word with two different definitions breaks things).
Please note any differences in comments and I'll edit this list to include them.
None documented so far ...
See also for documentation and issues related to specific language variants:
After further thought webForth has migrated to Forth2012 with as many of the eForth words as makes sense to be able to handle more traditional code. See #83 for the test suite.
Forth seems to still - after all these years - subscribe to the idea that if one standard is good, then many must be better :-(.
Forth79, Forth83, ANS and probably a few more defacto standards.
Currently the system is based on
eForth
and should match those definitions, but that might not be the best solution.I propose adding some vocabularies that can be used to switch between standards so that a package could for example go
ANS
at the top and then write in ANS forth. It might not be perfect, but I'm guessing the breaking differences are minor. (e.g. the presence or absence of a word doesn't break anything - just add the word - but the same word with two different definitions breaks things).Please note any differences in comments and I'll edit this list to include them.
See also for documentation and issues related to specific language variants: