Naming conventions

[larsbrinkhoff]

This comes up every now and then. Here's a summary I made:

Word	Explanation
0foo	Clear foo, reset foo
foo0	Initial state of foo
+foo	Add to foo
-foo	Remove from foo, or disable foo
foo!	Store a foo at an address
foo@	Fetch a foo from an address
!foo	Set foo, or enable foo
@foo	Get foo (sorry GitHub user @foo)
>foo	Convert to foo, or push onto foo
foo>	Pop from foo
?foo	Optionally do foo
foo?	Return a boolean value
foo'	Accept an address or xt as input
'foo	Address or xt of foo
foo"	Parse a string and do foo
"foo	Accept a string as input
foo,	Compile a foo, or assemble foo instruction
#foo	Number of foos
foo#	Foo index
/foo	Size of foo
foo:	Define a foo
.foo	Print a foo
[foo]	Do foo at compile time
(foo)	Internal implementation of foo, runtime action of foo
\foo	Foo with argument order reversed or permuted

[larsbrinkhoff]

Adding @rdrop-exit's \foo.

[massung]

Nice list. The only one I have any comment on is /foo, which sort of flies in the face of /string. I always see /word as a kind of slicing/dropping operation.

[rdrop-exit]

Here are a few more for your consideration:

• `foo Under foo
• {foo Beginning of foo, first foo
• foo} End of foo, last foo
• foo| Limit of foo
• ~foo Toggle or invert foo
• foo~ Synchronize, refresh, or update foo
• foo% Foo mask
• %foo Binary logarithm of foo
• _foo Transient foo
• foo; Exiting foo (as in then;)
• foo^ Bailing foo
• foo' Foo cache or foo prime
• +foo Enable foo
• xfoo Foo exception
• fooo With overflow checking (as in u*o)
• ufoo Unsigned foo
• bfoo Byte foo
• ?foo Foo on non-zero
• 0foo Foo on zero
• foo0 Initialize or reset foo
• fooz zero (as in doz difference or zero)

I probably have more but I'd need to go through my code to refresh my memory.

[DRuffer]

I have used |foo| for size and /foo for cut (e.g. /string) DaR From: Jeffrey Massung Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 6:05 AM To: ForthHub/discussion Cc: Subscribed Subject: Re: [ForthHub/discussion] Naming conventions (#73) Nice list. The only one I have any comment on is /foo, which sort of flies in the face of /string. I always see /word as a kind of slicing/dropping operation. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[ruv]

Nice idea to make a list of various naming conventions found in the wild. Many of them was also mentioned in "Thinking Forth", Appendix E, "Naming conventions" section — with examples.

On the other hand, excessive use of the special characters in the names produces a kind of gobbledygook. This effect also increases on using special syntaxes (via "recognizers" or something alike). Also a text become less predictable regarding where is a special syntax and where is a word name.

For example, when using wordlist::word syntax for qualified names, x::foo-size is far better readable than x::/foo or x::|foo|.

When using 'word syntax to quote a word — the expressions like 'foo" become too cryptic.

When using "foo bar" syntax for string literals — the words with names like "foo become ambiguous.

So, I would not recommend to use the special characters in the names of API level, maybe except a few stable variants like foo? or foo!.

[rdrop-exit]

This effect also increases on using special syntaxes (via "recognizers" or something alike). Also a text become less predictable regarding where is a special syntax and where is a word name.

Special syntaxes are best avoided in my opinion. Forth is by choice semantics driven rather than syntax driven, this is a key to Forth's simplicity, hence Thinking Forth's enjoinder to "Let commands perform themselves".

[ruv]

"Let commands perform themselves" is a corollary to "Avoid expectations (in the input stream)". But actually we have ['], POSTPONE, S",etc, parsing words that do expectation (i.e. look ahead into the input stream) and violate the latter principle. And though they look like ordinary words, they implement a special syntax in the form of a prefix keyword with the set of well known problems. Actually it is an off-topic in this thread. It is better to start the new one to continue.

[rdrop-exit]

Yes, Forth already has a handful of simple prefix words that should only be used judiciously and with care. That does not invalidate the point of "Let commands perform themselves", which extols the benefits of not being syntax driven. The Forth approach is more akin to a sophisticated interactive assembler than a traditional parsed language compiler/interpreter.

[ellerh]

It would be nice if you could add a column with pronunciation.

[RogerLevy]

Nice thread.

I made a reference table for my own conventions in Ramen -

I like that 0word convention. I've been using /word for initializing things, which I learned from SwiftForth, but it's been conflicting lately with the sizeof convention which I also use... :/

As your projects get bigger, conventions become more and more important.

I'd like to propose that word! be for setting foo as well as storing a foo somewhere when foo is a numeric datatype. And that !word be used for indirect stores, i.e. where the data stack doesn't contain the source and/or destination.

word+ is missing - indirectly increase something.

I also kinda like the convention set by >in - variables holding offsets. But I don't think a lot of people will agree with me ;)

[DRuffer]

I don’t see your reference table in a quick glance. Can you post a link to it? DaR From: Roger Levy Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:36 PM To: ForthHub/discussion Cc: Dennis Ruffer; Comment Subject: Re: [ForthHub/discussion] Naming conventions (#73) I made a reference table for my own conventions in Ramen I like that 0word convention. I've been using /word for initializing things, which I learned from SwiftForth, but it's been conflicting lately with the sizeof convention which I also use... :/ As your projects get bigger, conventions become more and more important. I'd like to propose that word! be for setting foo as well as storing a foo somewhere when foo is a numeric datatype. And that !word be used for indirect stores, i.e. where the data stack doesn't contain the destination. word+ is missing - indirectly increase something. I also kinda like the convention set by >in - variables holding offsets. But I don't think a lot of people will agree with me ;) — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[RogerLevy]

I don’t see your reference table in a quick glance. Can you post a link to it?

Sorry! Bit out of it today. Here it is. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TDGwB0WVFC9nuAOQ2-o6ifNpvb8OILJtZK2zFm6ONxc/edit?ouid=104440289541124611001&usp=sheets_home&ths=true

[DRuffer]

Thanks! DaR From: Roger Levy Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 4:08 PM To: ForthHub/discussion Cc: Dennis Ruffer; Comment Subject: Re: [ForthHub/discussion] Naming conventions (#73) I don’t see your reference table in a quick glance. Can you post a link to it? Sorry! Bit out of it today. Here it is. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TDGwB0WVFC9nuAOQ2-o6ifNpvb8OILJtZK2zFm6ONxc/edit?ouid=104440289541124611001&usp=sheets_home&ths=true — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[rdrop-exit]

Nice thread.

I made a reference table for my own conventions in Ramen -

I like that 0word convention. I've been using /word for initializing things, which I learned from SwiftForth, but it's been conflicting lately with the sizeof convention which I also use... :/

I prefer to use the foo0 convention for "foo reset/initialize", leaving 0foo for "foo conditional on zero", i.e. the counterpart of ?foo "foo conditional on not zero".

As your projects get bigger, conventions become more and more important.

I'd like to propose that word! be for setting foo as well as storing a foo somewhere when foo is a numeric datatype. And that !word be used for indirect stores, i.e. where the data stack doesn't contain the source and/or destination.

@! ( x a -- ) would be a typical indirect store instruction, indirectly store cell x through address a, i.e. a contraction of @ !. The analog for indirectly storing a byte would be @b! ( b a -- ).

word+ is missing - indirectly increase something.

I also kinda like the convention set by >in - variables holding offsets. But I don't think a lot of people will agree with me ;)

I need to start being more consistent with >foo, sometimes I use it for offsets, sometimes for "convert to foo", and sometimes for "send to foo".

[RogerLevy]

I prefer to use the foo0 convention for "foo reset/initialize", leaving 0foo for "foo conditional on zero", i.e. the counterpart of ?foo "foo conditional on not zero".

?foo is enough for me. You don't want to pack the code with too much information. If you think about it though, an on-true word and an on-false word are essentially the same thing, because 0= evaluates to true. ;)

But seriously, should the condition on which the word is executed change from non-zero to zero or vice versa, you'd have to change the name of the word! So I don't think that's all that useful.

@! ( x a -- ) would be a typical indirect store instruction, indirectly store cell x through address a, i.e. a contraction of @ !.

I tend not to like to use pointers of that kind so it's no wonder, I don't have a word like that!

Maybe indirect was the wrong term. I find myself saying, let's store (or fetch) something, but where it comes from or where it goes isn't necessarily on the stack. So if some concept such as a working buffer exists, !buffer might save that to disk and @buffer would read it. Maybe it would take a filename, or maybe that's in a string variable and there aren't any args.

I need to start being more consistent with >foo, sometimes I use it for offsets, sometimes for "convert to foo", and sometimes for "send to foo".

The first two to me are essentially the same. It's a transformation. That's a great concept for a single symbol to represent. I used to use it for "send to" too, but I stopped, instead using foo! or coming up with a more creative name.

I try to limit the punctuation on the whole. If every word has punctuation from a vast set of conventions you get to a point where you're writing in something closer to C just more cryptic.

[rdrop-exit]

I prefer to use the foo0 convention for "foo reset/initialize", leaving 0foo for "foo conditional on zero", i.e. the counterpart of ?foo "foo conditional on not zero".

?foo is enough for me. You don't want to pack the code with too much information. If you think about it though, an on-true word and an on-false word are essentially the same thing, because 0= evaluates to true. ;)

But seriously, should the condition on which the word is executed change from non-zero to zero or vice versa, you'd have to change the name of the word! So I don't think that's all that useful.

I perfectly understand where you're coming from for high level words, but at the lowest level of a Forth though you're dealing with primitives, i.e. instructions for either a real or a virtual Forth stack machine. If the machine has "branch conditional on 0", "exit conditional on 0", "break conditional on 0" or any other "foo conditional on 0" instructions, 0foo is the traditional Forth convention.

[RogerLevy]

I perfectly understand where you're coming from for high level words, but at the lowest level of a Forth though you're dealing with primitives, i.e. instructions for either a real machine or a virtual Forth stack machine. If the machine has "branch conditional on 0", "exit condition on 0", "break conditional on 0" or any other "foo conditional on 0" instructions, 0foo is the traditional Forth convention.

Well! I did not know that. :) Can't see myself having a use for it, but still good to know. :)

[massung]

I'm very much enjoying this discussion. ;-) I will say that I have - partly - always been rather mystified by the Forth propensity for obscuring what's taking place. While it may make sense to the author that `0foo` means X and `foo0` means Y (and those meanings being orthogonal to each other), words like `init-foo`, `new-foo`, and `foo-zero?` are unambiguous and the code is now universally understood. Some symbols do have historical meaning in Forth (e.g. `>foo` for "convert to foo" or "as foo"), but often times Forth code can be just as read-only as Perl code making use of $_ everywhere. When even short word definitions can require a significant cognitive load to parse and reason about, something's probably gone wrong along the way. Many of these short-hand word names came about due to space limitations and the word names actually being stored in ROM, less data to transfer serially, etc. And while there are likely still some space-limiting systems out there, certainly there's room (pun intended) for expansion. Anyway, IMHO, a legend at the top of the source code file should not be required. ;-) My 2p. Jeff

…

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:02 PM Mark W. Humphries ***@***.***> wrote: I prefer to use the foo0 convention for "foo reset/initialize", leaving 0foo for "foo conditional on zero", i.e. the counterpart of ?foo "foo conditional on not zero". ?foo is enough for me. You don't want to pack the code with too much information. If you think about it though, an on-true word and an on-false word are essentially the same thing, because 0= evaluates to true. ;) But seriously, should the condition on which the word is executed change from non-zero to zero or vice versa, you'd have to change the name of the word! So I don't think that's all that useful. I perfectly understand where you're coming from for high level words, but at the lowest level of a Forth though you're dealing with primitives, i.e. instructions for either a real machine or a virtual Forth stack machine. If the machine has "branch conditional on 0", "exit condition on 0", "break conditional on 0" or any other "foo conditional on 0" instructions, 0foo is the traditional Forth convention. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#73 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAtlwq5Jra4iDkT3LZRsYJwxCoPkjMlbks5unoaugaJpZM4WUpTO> .

[RogerLevy]

Anyway, IMHO, a legend at the top of the source code file should not be required. ;-)

This is why I advocate keeping the number of these conventions to a smaller amount. But I would keep the set to something we can all agree on, if we're writing code to be shared. Of course, if I was writing a library, I might `init-foo` anyway and hide all the short words in a vocabulary. The reason Forth programmers like to do this is not just space limitations, if you are doing Forth right you are typing words over and over again at the prompt to try them out, so keeping them short has an advantage. You just learn to read them. Good Forth code shouldn't require you to read and reason out exactly what is happening on a technical level. It should convey the gist of what is happening on a high level and then you drill down if needed. It's a form of literate programming. I think this gets somewhat lost on C programmers, who demand precision and maximum detail, but not Javascript or Python programmers. Anyway it's not like other languages don't use a plethora of more arbitrary symbols to convey information - most often which is technical, i.e. for the compiler, rather than self-documenting. I think the interpreted languages do a better job at this.

[jwoehr]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:31 AM Roger Levy ***@***.***> wrote: The reason Forth programmers like to do this is not just space limitations,

You're right, OCD has a lot to do with it :)

…

-- Absolute Performance, Inc. 12303 Airport Way, Suite 100 Broomfield, CO 80021 NON-DISCLOSURE NOTICE: This communication including any and all attachments is for the intended recipient(s) only and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure, copying further distribution or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete/destroy all copies of this communication immediately.

[RogerLevy]

I don't deny a certain amount of finnickyness comes into the equation. My code is a weird mix of tidy and whatever-works. ;)

[rdrop-exit]

I'm very much enjoying this discussion. ;-) I will say that I have - partly - always been rather mystified by the Forth propensity for obscuring what's taking place. While it may make sense to the author that 0foo means X and foo0 means Y (and those meanings being orthogonal to each other), words like init-foo, new-foo, and foo-zero? are unambiguous and the code is now universally understood. Some symbols do have historical meaning in Forth (e.g. >foo for "convert to foo" or "as foo"), but often times Forth code can be just as read-only as Perl code making use of $_ everywhere. When even short word definitions can require a significant cognitive load to parse and reason about, something's probably gone wrong along the way. Many of these short-hand word names came about due to space limitations and the word names actually being stored in ROM, less data to transfer serially, etc. And while there are likely still some space-limiting systems out there, certainly there's room (pun intended) for expansion. Anyway, IMHO, a legend at the top of the source code file should not be required. ;-) My 2p. Jeff
…

Forth programmers usually know their Forth systems and Forth code base inside and out, it's natural that over time they would develop shorthand naming conventions and idioms. I'd much prefer being provided a list of the shorthands that frequently occur in a code base then to have to wade through reams Cobol-esque looking source code. Just imagine if processor instruction sets used long hyphenated instruction names instead of short mnemonics, rotate-through-carry-right, jump-on-not-zero, convert-word-to-extended-doubleword. It would drive me batty. :-)

[RogerLevy]

@ruv

So, I would not recommend to use the special characters in the names of API level, maybe except a few stable variants like foo? or foo!.

I like the distinction you make with API level words. If Forth programmers are going to start sharing more code we definitely need some amount of protocol. I wouldn't expect another programmer to adopt a library I've written that was filled with short words and punctuation marks due not only to the fact that punctuation isn't always obvious (in the case of uses of /, ', and nonstandard datatype symbols) but also to the high likelihood of name collision and/or limiting their own lexical expressiveness.

(A framework is different, Ramen is effectively a new language.)

[alexshpilkin]

@rdrop-exit:

Just imagine if processor instruction sets used long hyphenated instruction names instead of short mnemonics, rotate-through-carry-right, jump-on-not-zero, convert-word-to-extended-doubleword. It would drive me batty. :-)

It’s possible to get this right, as well, see Common Lisp (ahem, make-load-form-saving-slots). Unlike Java and your hypothetical assembly, it compensates for this by being extremely concise. The factoring style is quite different from idiomatic Forth, though.

(What surprises me most in CL’s style, perhaps, is that it also unapologetically introduces extended versions of functions, but with descriptive name suffixes like -saving-slots it’s not actually the hell that the Win32 *Ex functions are.)

[MitchBradley]

With Open Firmware, I adopted the convention of spelling-out-with-hyphens-without-abbreviations everything except extremely-commonly-used core words.  The system had to be used by a lot of people, only a few of whom were going to use it so heavily that they could memorize cryptic shorthand.  The separator is hyphen, not underscore (underscore would have worked but the important thing is to pick one and use it consistently).  The fragment order is verb-adjective-noun like English, so "init-decorated-blob", not "blob-init-decorated" (again, having a convention and sticking with it is more important than which one you pick). I think that turned out well.  The core developers quickly learned not to use idiosyncratic abbreviations - use English dictionary spelling.  Words related to a given topic can be reliably located with the "sifting" feature (finds word names containing a substring).  The command line editor has tab completion to reduce typing. That said, certain punctuation characters were part of the naming convention, including @ (fetch, of course), ! (store), and $ (string). One nice side effect of writing out names is that it is easier to describe something over the phone.  Abbreviations and punctuation require a lot of spoken words to convey accurately.  Of course, this is no longer as important as before, what with texting and IM and easier remote access.  But back in the day it was a big deal. Mitch

…

On 10/23/2018 6:09 AM, Alexander Shpilkin wrote: @rdrop-exit <https://github.com/rdrop-exit>: Just imagine if processor instruction sets used long hyphenated instruction names instead of short mnemonics, rotate-through-carry-right, jump-on-not-zero, convert-word-to-extended-doubleword. It would drive me batty. :-) It’s possible to get this right, as well, see Common Lisp (ahem, |make-load-form-saving-slots|). Unlike Java and your hypothetical assembly, it compensates for this by being extremely concise. The factoring style is quite different from idiomatic Forth, though. (What surprises me most in CL’s style, perhaps, is that it also unapologetically introduces extended versions of functions, but with descriptive name suffixes like |-saving-slots| it’s not actually the hell that the Win32 |*Ex| functions are.) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#73 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEoszU1j29aZ7X65F6_i6tMS0bMg1BdHks5unz8ygaJpZM4WUpTO>.

[cwpjr]

I'm working on a minamalist F83 forth for the ARM devices; [image: image.png]

…

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:31 AM Roger Levy ***@***.***> wrote: > Anyway, IMHO, a legend at the top of the source code file should not be > required. ;-) > This is why I advocate keeping the number of these conventions to a smaller amount. But I would keep the set to something we can all agree on, if we're writing code to be shared. Of course, if I was writing a library, I might `init-foo` anyway and hide all the short words in a vocabulary. The reason Forth programmers like to do this is not just space limitations, if you are doing Forth right you are typing words over and over again at the prompt to try them out, so keeping them short has an advantage. You just learn to read them. Good Forth code shouldn't require you to read and reason out exactly what is happening on a technical level. It should convey the gist of what is happening on a high level and then you drill down if needed. It's a form of literate programming. I think this gets somewhat lost on C programmers, who demand precision and maximum detail, but not Javascript or Python programmers. Anyway it's not like other languages don't use a plethora of more arbitrary symbols to convey information - most often which is technical, i.e. for the compiler, rather than self-documenting. I think the interpreted languages do a better job at this. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#73 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFC6xQQcx9wYBoOtMdiI46YYCWwbL6NEks5unxo4gaJpZM4WUpTO> .

[cwpjr]

Agreed~! On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:33 PM Mitch Bradley <notifications@github.com> wrote:

…

With Open Firmware, I adopted the convention of spelling-out-with-hyphens-without-abbreviations everything except extremely-commonly-used core words. The system had to be used by a lot of people, only a few of whom were going to use it so heavily that they could memorize cryptic shorthand. The separator is hyphen, not underscore (underscore would have worked but the important thing is to pick one and use it consistently). The fragment order is verb-adjective-noun like English, so "init-decorated-blob", not "blob-init-decorated" (again, having a convention and sticking with it is more important than which one you pick). I think that turned out well. The core developers quickly learned not to use idiosyncratic abbreviations - use English dictionary spelling. Words related to a given topic can be reliably located with the "sifting" feature (finds word names containing a substring). The command line editor has tab completion to reduce typing. That said, certain punctuation characters were part of the naming convention, including @ (fetch, of course), ! (store), and $ (string). One nice side effect of writing out names is that it is easier to describe something over the phone. Abbreviations and punctuation require a lot of spoken words to convey accurately. Of course, this is no longer as important as before, what with texting and IM and easier remote access. But back in the day it was a big deal. Mitch On 10/23/2018 6:09 AM, Alexander Shpilkin wrote: > > @rdrop-exit <https://github.com/rdrop-exit>: > > Just imagine if processor instruction sets used long hyphenated > instruction names instead of short mnemonics, > rotate-through-carry-right, jump-on-not-zero, > convert-word-to-extended-doubleword. It would drive me batty. :-) > > It’s possible to get this right, as well, see Common Lisp (ahem, > |make-load-form-saving-slots|). Unlike Java and your hypothetical > assembly, it compensates for this by being extremely concise. The > factoring style is quite different from idiomatic Forth, though. > > (What surprises me most in CL’s style, perhaps, is that it also > unapologetically introduces extended versions of functions, but with > descriptive name suffixes like |-saving-slots| it’s not actually the > hell that the Win32 |*Ex| functions are.) > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#73 (comment)>, > or mute the thread > < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEoszU1j29aZ7X65F6_i6tMS0bMg1BdHks5unz8ygaJpZM4WUpTO >. > — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#73 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFC6xXV-7SoP0rG7SWLqzvwO9mxZ1xWgks5un1LugaJpZM4WUpTO> .

[sturem]

With Open Firmware, I adopted the convention of spelling-out-with-hyphens-without-abbreviations everything except extremely-commonly-used core words.  The system had to be used by a lot of people, only a few of whom were going to use it so heavily that they could memorize cryptic shorthand...

(off-topic) @MitchBradley:
Thanks💯, as a former Sun SE, for Sun's firmware & boot architecture: it's not recognised widely-enough!
I remember OpenBoot/FCode wistfully every time PC BIOS f*cks something...