Attendance: Willem Botha Stephen Pelc Leon Wagner Andrew Haley Peter Knaggs Ulrich Hoffmann Gerald Wodni Anton Ertl Bernd Paysan Sergey Baranov Review of document Accepted except for a few changes 7Y:0:0 (AH, BP, SB absent) Constitution Accepted 10Y:0:0 Vote: Chair: SP 6, AE 4 Editor: PK 10 Technical Edoitor: GW 10 Treasurer: BP 10 Stephen Pelc takes on the duties of the chair Publishing the standard: It should have an ISBN. Discussion and subcommittee appointed Some changes of introductory material Rolling document update: The last standard is now Forth-2012. Discussion, especially about extension queries Accept 10Y:0:0 1 Chars=1: Accept: 9Y:1N:0A Quotations: Accept: 6Y:1N:3A (no consensus, more practice wanted) S>F D>F: Accept: 10Y:0N:0N Discussion of RfDs: Recognizers: Presentation and discussion Memory Access: Presentation and discussion, subcommittee BP SP New double syntax: Only destandardize, no new syntax, #1. is enough groups separators as a possible separate proposal UD< While most committee members prefer UD as a prefix, they currently do not feel that this is sufficient grounds for renaming DU<. However, proposing new words with a UD prefix is fine, and if they are accepted, maybe the feeling of the committee about DU< will change. Proposals from forth-standard.org wlscope Presentation and discussion; BP will make a reply on behalf of the committee. Defer is not Presentation and Discussion: AE will reply: The committee knows how to implement forward declarations without the extra fetch required by deferred words. However, the benefit (a minor speedup in a relatively rare case) does not justify the cost in our opinion. Progress reports: single xt: No progress BP/SP/AE Floating point input: What is this about? Delete it Socket wordset/library: Small progress GW Multi-Tasking/threading: Common practice exists: AH/GW Internationalization: SP/PK/WB Cross-compilers: The starting point for the proposal is now outdated, and there is no client interest in standardizing cross-compilers. Therefore abandon it (SP). IEEE FP: IEEE 754 is now so complex that it is too much work both in the specification and in the implementation to follow that in the Forth standard. There is a lot of common practice based on all FP hardware these days providing IEEE FP, and programs just can declare an environmental dependency on that. Therefore abandon the proposal (AH). Matters arising Libraries/Packages directory words needed; discussion Experimental Proposals For some RfDs, we want to encourage the community to implement them in systems experimentally, and use them in programs to encourage feedback and common practice; the proposal is still subject to change, but the perspective is that something in that vein is intended to be standardized in the future. 10Y:0:0 Proposals Process I was absent during this discussion Extension Queries SP writes a proposal that removes the "maybe" answer Ambiguous Conditions Let's try to get rid of ambiguous conditions; proposals needed Any other business Directory Access Discussion, GW writes summary C Interface Work on standardizing calling Name: as in the C function, use same case Order of parameters: leftmost bottom, rightmost top FP values are converted between the Forth type and whatever the C function expects or returns Integers: Some are passed as doubles: identify which types are doubles per standard Strings: divergent practice, const char * is string Declarations: covered by using SWIG? dll/.so files: no common practice yet OS-Type query Case Insensitivity RfD on making ASCII characters case insensitive AE