wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (07/23/90)
> ... it would be desirable to produce a Standard for arithmetic ... > > The state of affairs: In Babylon a numeration system with base 60 is > in use, Arabia has used a base 10 system, the Hexians have used > base 16 while their neighbors, the Booleans, have used base 2. > > ... possibilities ... (paraphrased for brevity) > 1. Standard the (useless) common subset of "0" > 2. Pick a base and make that the standard. > 3. Invent a (cumbersome) system that encompasses all the other systems. Well, we all agree that 2 is the the neatest, nicest, solution. BUT IN THE CASE OF FORTH DIVISION, IT JUST DIDN'T WORK. That approach has been tried. You know, I would have been very happy if every Forth vendor had switched to Forth-83 and floored division. Or if every Forth vendor had ignored Forth-83 and had stayed with whatyoumaycallit Forth-79 division. Then all this / nonsense wouldn't be an issue. BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. And the proponents of the 2 different divisions didn't (and won't) go away. And they won't stop voting against the other kind of division. And the ANS committee can't complete the standard without consensus. So what is the solution? With reference to the analogy, the ANS solution is: a) Note that there are 2 commonly-used number bases, each with its advantages and proponents (this is a reasonable restriction of the analogy, since only 2 kinds of division appear to be in contention). b) Note that either base may be used as long as you are consistent and you say which one you are using (the explicit operators SM/MOD and FM/MOD allow you to choose either style of division). Mitch