Steve Palmer

Hi again Francois, I thought I might be better able to explain my position if I invented a new forth word with a trivial meaning: ``` DEVICE_READ_COUNT ( -- n...

Yes - I think the BLOCK words are set in stone, perhaps due to erosion rather than merit. I've just tweaked my system to use two resident buffers and the...

Thank you Francois. I now understand why the test fails and what is meant by "BLOCK will force a read from mass storage". (For Your Information, my implementation sounds similar,...

I've found a copy of the FORTH - 79 standard (October 1980), and it's definition of `BLOCK` is (I think) different to ANS FORTH. From the FORTH - 79 standard:...

I've got some catching up to do here, so bare with me: > I just grabbed my copy of the "Forth Programmer's Handbook" and it turns out you are right...

Now to an area we agree: > GNU Forth certainly entertains the assumption that a reference to BUFFER will have that block read from mass storage but this is in...

Francois states: > Wrt the ANSI standard: "not being already in memory" is where I think you just cannot maintain that kind of information with just two bits of information....

If an (almost) implementation is not a way this problem can be understood, then how about some test code... Consider the following: ``` ( Prepare a buffer in memory with...

I have just noticed an [answer](https://forth-standard.org/standard/block/BLOCK) to the clarification I asked for in Forth 2012 standard. This question I asked was "Can `BLOCK` transfer from mass storage in the case...

I'm going to close this issue as a "Won't Fix". The tests as written are consistent with the Forth 2012 standard, specifically: - they test only what the standard requires;...