Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8524
| Date | 2011-12-31 10:20 -1000 |
|---|---|
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
| Organization | FORTH, Inc. |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? |
| References | (11 earlier) <4efce675$0$6909$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <09b2b71d-3db5-42a7-992d-569ab4ddc912@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4efd7b45$0$6858$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <Db6dnYljq4acY2DTnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@supernews.com> <4eff4653$0$6840$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| Message-ID | <ccidnSy9CLPm82LTnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@supernews.com> (permalink) |
On 12/31/11 7:29 AM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 12/29/11 10:51 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: >> Wait, you think ANS Forth should have forbidden 32-bit or 64-bit >> implementations? Mandated ITC and other implementation details? > No, quite the contrary. I think that every standardization effort comes with > a bit of pain. I just think that an improvement *may* cost a bit of pain > instead of dragging on with something that just isn't solid. Yes, it may > cost some editing and testing, but that's all in the game. Yes, it may > invalidate some perfectly good code, but sometimes there is a good reason > for it. > > E.g. I know that having in a shared data/FP stack will complicate life, > since 4tH has both. ZenFP is a wonderful elegant piece of code (at least > IMHO) and I usually develop FP code there because it is so easy to handle. > Still, although I thought it was a pity I understood the reasons > for "unANSifying" it only too well and didn't object. > > IMHO people are hiding too much behind "current technology", "legacy code > base" and "current implementations". Just get it right instead of fixing it > all the time! The difficulty is that opinions differ on exactly what "getting it right" constitutes! It was that attitude that caused Forth83 to break a lot of code and create serious divisions in the Forth community. >> Pre-Forth94 cross compilers didn't comply with Forth83, so were no more >> or less standard as a result of ANS Forth, and the TC did attempt to >> provide a solution for them. It is now perfectly possible to market a >> cross-compiler labeled "Complies with proposed cross-compiler standard." > I'm aware too well of this "proposed" standard - it's been there for YEARS! > Isn't it time to put it to a vote and include the darn thing? Truly, I would love to see that happen! Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-28 15:44 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 09:03 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 16:16 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-11-28 20:30 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 18:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bee <forth@calcentral.com> - 2011-11-28 19:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-11-29 06:49 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 11:14 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 09:10 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-30 06:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 08:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-30 01:24 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-01 18:25 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 09:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-02 06:23 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 19:40 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-03 00:58 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 18:33 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 09:35 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 10:44 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-03 19:56 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 10:02 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 14:56 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-03 19:22 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-03 20:42 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-04 10:42 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-05 14:15 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-04 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 14:23 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 07:05 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 16:03 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:21 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 14:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-08 01:00 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:18 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-07 23:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 11:02 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 11:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-08 07:48 -0800
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
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-06 16:04 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 19:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 07:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 19:21 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-07 20:58 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-07 10:39 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 23:52 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 12:35 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:57 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 12:37 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-12-05 19:10 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 11:16 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 18:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-10 18:05 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-10 09:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-10 11:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-11 11:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-11 21:25 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-12 12:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-02 13:52 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-29 18:29 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-11-28 22:09 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 04:10 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 08:20 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 06:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 09:47 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-30 05:28 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 18:42 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-11-30 08:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 17:55 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 09:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-01 14:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 15:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:08 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 11:09 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 08:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-01 12:19 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:10 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-02 16:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 11:42 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-11-29 11:19 +0000
csiph-web