Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable?

From	anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Subject	Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable?
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
References	(1 earlier) <jcoqe4$8vl$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> <71b42619-7792-43ab-af33-7291c2cd700f@cs7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4ef2dc18$0$6987$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <14e5550e-b1a6-4e3f-a419-06280c8d36ee@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <4ef432a8$0$6986$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl>
Organization	Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Date	2011-12-24 13:38 +0000
Message-ID	<2011Dec24.143802@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> writes:
>I didn't write this because I necessarily agree with Ed (since I didn't see
>him define any specific alternative), but because the LENGTH and duration
>of this discussion proves there are issues involving DOES>.

Sure, it proves that there is one person who is not content with the
standard specification of DOES>, and is energetic enough to keep the
thread going.  It also proved that "do not feed the trolls" is not
very effective in clf, at least for some topics (but is it anywhere?).

Name any feature that you think is perfectly specified in the
standard, and if you pay me enough, I will produce a kook who will
"prove" by the same means that "there are issues involving" this
feature.

>>> And like Paysan correctly stated: if the
>>> functionality is clearly defined as such why can't I apply any
>>> interpretation semantics?

Very simple: There was no common practice for interpretation semantics
for this word.  In other words: Some (many?) systems produced an error
when you used DOES> interpretively or they produced behaviour that did
not make much sense.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:20 +1100
  Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-12 06:35 -0800
    Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-12 09:00 -0800
  Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 20:26 +0000
    Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-15 00:53 +1100
      Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-14 10:21 -0800
        Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:42 +1100
          Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 01:49 -0800
            Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 11:20 +1100
              Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 15:21 -1000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 13:05 +1100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 21:13 -1000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:45 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-22 08:29 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-21 23:03 -1000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 08:32 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-23 08:50 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-23 07:01 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-23 08:27 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-24 13:38 +0000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-25 02:37 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 09:08 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-26 12:17 +0000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:11 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-27 07:37 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-27 03:48 -0600
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:03 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-28 08:59 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 04:23 -0600
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 14:01 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:03 -0600
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 10:40 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 23:16 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 14:25 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 09:51 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-30 08:08 -1000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-31 18:29 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-31 10:54 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 10:20 -1000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 00:41 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 15:43 -1000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 03:22 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 16:58 -1000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 15:00 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-01-03 09:08 +0000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-03 10:28 +0000
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 12:11 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-12-22 17:39 +0100
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 09:13 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 09:26 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 10:39 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 10:58 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 12:00 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 12:16 -0800
              Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:44 -0800
              Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:18 -0800
          Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-16 07:37 -0800
      Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 19:42 +0000
        Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:44 +1100
          Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 03:25 -0800
            Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 12:37 +1100
              Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:32 -0800
                Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:54 -0800
          PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-28 16:37 +1100
            Re: PFA of a DOES> word Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 04:55 -0800
              Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 22:23 +1100
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:16 -0800
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word Sieur de Bienville <morrimichael@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 13:13 -0800
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 04:51 +1100
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 12:12 -0600
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-07 23:31 +1100
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-07 07:37 -0600
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-01-07 16:58 +0100
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:53 +1100
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:29 -0800
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 16:15 -0600
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 14:30 -0800
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:00 -0600
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 15:12 -0800
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:53 -0600
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:24 -0800
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:56 -0800
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:54 +1100
                Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-09 01:35 -0800
            Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:18 -0800
      Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-15 07:51 -0800

csiph-web