Re: [Amforth] Release 4.4 tagged and published

[Matthias T. <mt...@we...>]

Hi Hannu


> Would it be good idea to change the 8k requirement from web page to
> something like Amforth takes about 8k Flash but doesn't fit out of
> box to 8k MCUs?

Well, maybe. Microcontrollers in general and amforth in
particular are no easy toys anyway... The German Forth
FIG prepares some workshops with pre-configured hardware.
That is an easier start.

> 
>> - The reference card got a more compact layout, many bugs from the
>> documentation headers in the source file are gone.
> 
> rx rx? tx tx? +usart and also @e and !e are described several times.
> e words have mention about XMEGA but tx and rx have same description.
> This has probably something to do with the fact we have UART USART
> and USART0.

The reason for that many words with the same name is simple:
they serve the same purpose in different environments. One
rx is a receive on an atmega using the interrupt driver, the
other one is the same but for an atxmega etc. But every rx
does the same. Anyways I've updated the words to give them better
(longer) names and added some more text to the PNO words (pictured
numeric output). The new pdf is on the project home page.

> Web page wordlist and refcard.pdf differs little bit but that isn't
> big problem. Bigger problem is that some words give error 404.

That sometimes happens, I did not found out, who is guilty for that.
Currently it seems to work again.

> One nice feature would also be generation of refcard on compilation.

That would change the refcard to an application specific one. Nice
idea...

> Interactively added words can't be there but let's assume that one
> creates Amforth system and writes some frt files which defines words,
> they could be put to Application part of card.

The refcard generator is already overcomplicated, dealing with forth
source code would make it to explode...

> The more work
> requiring thing would be list not included words in the project. That
> would have save so much my time if I had some list which had included
> and excluded words.

good idea as well, for an application specific build report.

Matthias