Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10149

Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP?

From jacko <jackokring@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP?
Date 2012-03-15 19:37 -0700
Organization http://groups.google.com
Message-ID <5639224.333.1331865422564.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbkc1> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <jj665d$7br$1@speranza.aioe.org> <AO6dnfQQq64jO8vSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@supernews.com> <jjgq7n$4j0$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4f5ce06b$0$6709$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <jjj5pr$o84$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:34:18 PM UTC, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Josh Grams" <josh@qualdan.com> wrote in message
> news:4f5ce06b$0$6709$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
> > Rod Pemberton wrote: <jjgq7n$4j0$1@speranza.aioe.org>
> > > fig-Forth only has I not J and K.  fig-Forth uses primitive (low-level)
> > > words, i.e., (DO) and (LOOP) to implement runtime routines for DO and
> > > LOOP.  These manipulate items stacked on the return stack, not a
> > > variable. As primitives, these are not coded in Forth and so they don't
> > > push additional items onto the return stack.  My (DO) and (LOOP) are
> > > coded in Forth, and the interpreter pushes additional items onto the
> > > return stack.  Implementing I J K using the return stack will require
> > > working around those other stacked items.  So far, even with a
> > > stack-optimizer, their definitions are becoming long, complicated, and
> > > is still not working ...
> >
> > Can we see what you're doing?  It shouldn't be complicated.
> >
> > (DO) pushes the loop parameters (and whatever else) onto the rstack.
> > This `loop-sys` should be a fixed size.
> >
> > (LOOP) and (+LOOP) adjust the loop index on the rstack and either branch
> > back to the beginning of the loop or drop the parameters from the
> > rstack.
> >
> > Then I simply extracts the loop index from the parameters on the rstack,
> > and J and K do the same but from a fixed offset deeper in the rstack.
> >
> 
> Ok, let's start with what I have working and am currently using.  I have a
> single 'I' based DO-LOOP using variables.  DO and LOOP are setup similarly
> to fig-Forth (in Forth):
> 
>   : DO COMPILE (DO) HERE ; IMMEDIATE
>   : LOOP COMPILE (LOOP) COMPILE 0BRANCH , ; IMMEDIATE
> 



On Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:34:18 PM UTC, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Josh Grams" <josh@qualdan.com> wrote in message
> news:4f5ce06b$0$6709$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
> > Rod Pemberton wrote: <jjgq7n$4j0$1@speranza.aioe.org>
> > > fig-Forth only has I not J and K.  fig-Forth uses primitive (low-level)
> > > words, i.e., (DO) and (LOOP) to implement runtime routines for DO and
> > > LOOP.  These manipulate items stacked on the return stack, not a
> > > variable. As primitives, these are not coded in Forth and so they don't
> > > push additional items onto the return stack.  My (DO) and (LOOP) are
> > > coded in Forth, and the interpreter pushes additional items onto the
> > > return stack.  Implementing I J K using the return stack will require
> > > working around those other stacked items.  So far, even with a
> > > stack-optimizer, their definitions are becoming long, complicated, and
> > > is still not working ...
> >
> > Can we see what you're doing?  It shouldn't be complicated.
> >
> > (DO) pushes the loop parameters (and whatever else) onto the rstack.
> > This `loop-sys` should be a fixed size.
> >
> > (LOOP) and (+LOOP) adjust the loop index on the rstack and either branch
> > back to the beginning of the loop or drop the parameters from the
> > rstack.
> >
> > Then I simply extracts the loop index from the parameters on the rstack,
> > and J and K do the same but from a fixed offset deeper in the rstack.
> >
> 
> Ok, let's start with what I have working and am currently using.  I have a
> single 'I' based DO-LOOP using variables.  DO and LOOP are setup similarly
> to fig-Forth (in Forth):
> 
>   : DO COMPILE (DO) HERE ; IMMEDIATE
>   : LOOP COMPILE (LOOP) COMPILE 0BRANCH , ; IMMEDIATE
> 
> Obviously, those compile (DO) and (LOOP) into the definitions.  Those may or
> may not need later modification either for I J K or for LEAVE or UNLOOP.
> I'm leaving those issues for later on.
> 
> Currently, I have IX as the variable for 'I' and LX as the variable for the
> loop limit.  'I' and (DO) and (LOOP) are:
> 
>   : I IX @ ;
>   : (DO) IX ! LX ! ;
>   : (LOOP) 1 IX +! LX @ IX @ - 0= ;
> 
> That works.  I think I did good in capturing the (undocumented) minus
> zero-equal termination condition of Forth loops.  Usually, the manuals
> say the termination is greater-than or equal ... (not).
> 
> Of course, I first need to convert 'I' to a return stack method prior to
> implementing J K .  My first attempt at return stack based (DO) was:
> 
>   : (DO) >R >R ;
> 
> However, the parameters weren't where I expect them to be.  E.g., supposedly
> R@ can be used to get 'I' which indicates it is on the top (or bottom) of
> the stack.  In the definition above, it'd be 2nd instead of 1st.  So, next I
> added SWAP to (DO), and tried the following:
> 
>   : I R@ ;
>   : (DO) SWAP >R >R ;
>   : (LOOP) >R 1+ >R R@ R> R@ -ROT >R - 0= ;
> 
> I believed that should've worked.  However, my interpreter places another
> item on the return stack, i.e., when the interpreter enters (DO).  So,
> instead of being able to fetch 'I' using R@, I had to do this to I (DO) and
> (LOOP) to preserve another stack item:
> 
>   : I R> R@ SWAP >R;
>   : (DO) R> SWAP ROT >R >R >R ;
>   : (LOOP) R> R> 1+ >R R@ R> R@ -ROT >R - 0= SWAP >R ;
> 
> I believe (LOOP) to be wrong.  It may just have a trivial error.  However, I
> got frustrated at about that point ...  So, I'll revisit it later.
> 
> FYI, these are all in Forth as ASCII text as above and being parsed and
> defined by my Forth interpreter (which is pre-compiled Forth in C, like
> Forth in assembly).  The branches and stack operators are primitive
> (low-level) words and map to C routines.
> 
> Anyway, that's what I've done or attempted so far.  In a worst case
> scenario, I could implement (DO) (LOOP) and 'I' as primitives.
> 
> 
> Rod Pemberton



On Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:34:18 PM UTC, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Josh Grams" <josh@qualdan.com> wrote in message
> news:4f5ce06b$0$6709$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
> > Rod Pemberton wrote: <jjgq7n$4j0$1@speranza.aioe.org>
> > > fig-Forth only has I not J and K.  fig-Forth uses primitive (low-level)
> > > words, i.e., (DO) and (LOOP) to implement runtime routines for DO and
> > > LOOP.  These manipulate items stacked on the return stack, not a
> > > variable. As primitives, these are not coded in Forth and so they don't
> > > push additional items onto the return stack.  My (DO) and (LOOP) are
> > > coded in Forth, and the interpreter pushes additional items onto the
> > > return stack.  Implementing I J K using the return stack will require
> > > working around those other stacked items.  So far, even with a
> > > stack-optimizer, their definitions are becoming long, complicated, and
> > > is still not working ...
> >
> > Can we see what you're doing?  It shouldn't be complicated.
> >
> > (DO) pushes the loop parameters (and whatever else) onto the rstack.
> > This `loop-sys` should be a fixed size.
> >
> > (LOOP) and (+LOOP) adjust the loop index on the rstack and either branch
> > back to the beginning of the loop or drop the parameters from the
> > rstack.
> >
> > Then I simply extracts the loop index from the parameters on the rstack,
> > and J and K do the same but from a fixed offset deeper in the rstack.
> >
> 
> Ok, let's start with what I have working and am currently using.  I have a
> single 'I' based DO-LOOP using variables.  DO and LOOP are setup similarly
> to fig-Forth (in Forth):
> 
>   : DO COMPILE (DO) HERE ; IMMEDIATE
>   : LOOP COMPILE (LOOP) COMPILE 0BRANCH , ; IMMEDIATE
> 

: (LOOP) .... (0BRANCH) ;
: LOOP COMPILE (LOOP) , ; IMMEDIATE

ummmm

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

Thread

In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-05 16:23 -0500
  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-05 12:11 -1000
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-05 13:44 -1000
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 11:26 +0000
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-06 05:42 -0800
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 14:51 +0000
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-06 10:17 -0600
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 16:49 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-06 11:56 -0600
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 18:07 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-07 04:14 -0600
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 15:56 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-12 11:23 -0500
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 16:26 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-12 12:28 -0500
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-06 13:36 -0500
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 09:18 -1000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-06 20:14 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 08:22 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-07 10:20 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 11:11 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-07 19:07 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-08 10:11 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 09:36 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 16:01 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-06 13:13 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 16:04 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-12 13:40 -0700
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-07 10:15 -0800
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 10:33 -0800
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-07 17:16 -1000
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 11:18 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-12 08:01 -1000
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 18:59 -0700
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-03-16 20:36 +0100
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-06 13:33 -0500
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 09:07 -1000
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-06 18:20 -0500
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 14:07 -1000
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-03-06 16:53 -0800
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 19:26 -1000
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-10 19:04 -0500
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-10 18:44 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-11 17:06 -0400
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:01 -0700
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-03-11 12:51 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 14:04 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-11 14:41 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-12 05:16 -0500
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-12 08:06 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-03-11 21:55 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:17 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-12 11:00 +0000
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-11 17:27 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-11 14:12 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-11 21:48 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-11 14:24 -1000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:09 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-11 17:34 -0400
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-11 13:18 -1000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:32 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-13 13:18 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-19 03:36 -0400
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 19:37 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-16 05:31 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-19 03:38 -0400
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-19 11:35 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-03-16 20:39 +0100
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-12 12:50 -0700
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 19:27 -0700
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 08:16 -0800
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 19:09 -0700
  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-05 14:23 -0800
  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-05 17:42 -0800
  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-06 09:36 -0800
  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-08 10:41 +0000
  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-08 05:38 -0800
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-09 10:32 -0800
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-12 19:26 -0700
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-13 04:15 -0400
  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-03-12 01:11 +0100
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-12 19:41 -0400
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-12 16:46 -1000
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-12 21:17 -0700
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-13 05:01 -0400
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-13 03:06 -0700
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-13 12:32 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-13 14:01 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-14 11:47 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-14 22:13 +0100
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-14 03:39 -0500
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-14 06:54 -1000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-14 16:39 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-15 10:49 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-14 08:53 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-14 17:01 +0100
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-14 11:21 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-14 19:25 +0100
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-14 16:37 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-15 04:28 -0400
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2012-03-13 16:19 -0400
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-14 20:13 -0400

csiph-web