Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10515
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Signed and unsigned looping. |
| Date | 2012-03-26 06:31 -0700 |
| Organization | http://groups.google.com |
| Message-ID | <e8354112-fbfd-487d-8ef1-63e55d2c733d@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| References | <m1abnz.65f@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
On Mar 22, 6:52 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > ... Of course nobody in his right mind would ever use > +LOOP on something other than a constant, but that doesn't help > implementers. ... It would be tricky to do so, but it's not obvious to me that such a technique isn't useful. I wonder if there are any good counter examples. Krishna
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
Signed and unsigned looping. Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-22 11:52 +0000 Re: Signed and unsigned looping. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-22 08:14 -0700 Re: Signed and unsigned looping. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 17:33 +0000 Re: Signed and unsigned looping. Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-03-26 06:31 -0700
csiph-web