Re: Valid code?

Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Date	2013-03-27 02:02 -0700
References	(1 earlier) <kip62u$287$1@dont-email.me> <kisi9g$srg$1@speranza.aioe.org> <kismf2$9j5$1@dont-email.me> <kiteab$f8f$1@speranza.aioe.org> <kiu737$9g7$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID	<c4f7035a-74e5-4eac-a0b4-5dabdc20d6d2@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: Valid code?
From	George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:31:06 AM UTC, Gerry wrote:
> On 27/03/2013 00:28, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 
> > "Gerry Jackson" <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> 
> > news:kismf2$9j5$1@dont-email.me...
> 
> I've no idea what's going on with versions of Win32 Forth. Version 
> 
> 6.15.00 was installed on my PC on 1 Sept 2010. I don't think I would 
> 
> have loaded it if it wasn't claimed to be a stable version but I might 
> 
> be wrong. Perhaps one of the Win32 Forth developers can comment.
> 
> 
> 
> If they haven't fixed the :NONAME recursing bug in what is now the 
> 
> latest stable version then it is pretty poor on their part - I reported 
> 
> it to them years ago when I developed my ANS Forth test programs.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Gerry

V6.15.00 is a development release (the clue is that 15 is an odd number: stable releases all have an even number as the minor version). The lateset stable release is V6.14.02 but (as was explained when you reported the bug) since all versions up to V6.14.00 (including Tom Zimmer's ones) didn't work correctly with :NONAME and RECURSE (it always compiled a reference to the last named definition) then the fix would involve new code so would be applied to the development version so it could be tested and included in the next stable release series. V6.14.02 is merely bug fixes of existing code not new developments.

George Hubert

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

Thread

Valid code? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-24 14:57 -0400
  Re:Valid code? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-03-24 21:04 +0100
    Re: Valid code? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-25 02:17 +0000
  Re: Valid code? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-24 13:04 -0700
    Re: Valid code? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-03-24 21:31 +0100
      Re: Valid code? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-24 14:09 -0700
  Re:Valid code? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-03-24 21:10 +0100
  Re: Valid code? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-25 09:43 +0000
    Re: Valid code? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-26 12:29 -0400
      Re: Valid code? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-26 17:41 +0000
        Re: Valid code? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-26 20:28 -0400
          Re: Valid code? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 07:31 +0000
            Re: Valid code? George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 02:02 -0700
              Re: Valid code? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 10:14 +0000
                Re: Valid code? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-27 12:37 +0000
                Re: Valid code? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-27 14:27 +0000
  Re: Valid code? Sieur de Bienville <morrimichael@gmail.com> - 2013-03-25 18:59 -0700

csiph-web