Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent
Date	2012-07-21 00:21 +0200
Organization	1&1 Internet AG
Message-ID	<juclkn$lr$1@online.de> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <4fffcf0d.105232408@192.168.0.50> <jtputo$ftm$1@online.de> <500975fa$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <juc7dq$6ul$1@online.de> <5009bf34$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>

Show all headers | View raw

Doug Hoffman wrote:

> Bernd Paysan wrote:
>> Doug Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>>> Bernd Paysan wrote:
>>>> Because you said that.  You probably didn't realize it :-).  You
>>>> said,
>>>> your favorite is FSM, and we should stick to what it offers.  Maybe
>>>> calling it "worst" is not really correct, it is one of the many
>>>> pretty limited OOF packages for Forth out there.
>>> What do you mean by "pretty limited"?
> 
> Bernd,  I don't know how to make sense of your response.  You are all
> over the map and have touched on a large number of cross-language
> issues
> that I'm not sure need to be weighted so heavily if at all.  What is
> the
> end goal for *Forth*?

To be an extensible and flexible interactive programming language that 
is minimalistic by design, yet does not people stop from extending it 
into whatever direction they want to.

> Create the *perfect* object system that is all
> things to all programmers and somehow melds all existing and new
> cutting edge object ideas from all languages that support objects?

The purpose of an extensible programming language is to allow users to 
extend it.  If they want this or that feature, yes, they can.

> That
> mindset is a setup for failure, read that as 30-50+ years or never to
> achieve a common Forth object system, caused by "analysis paralysis".

No, come on.  That's not the point.  The point is to create a common 
basis to write Forth object systems in, which then can interact more 
easily than they do now.

We already tried the "write an OOP system in isolation, and look if it 
takes over", and *that* approach failed.

>> Which means that you don't even understand how much it is limited
>> :-).
> 
> I wonder if you understand what you want to say because you can't seem
> to put your thoughts into a few matter-of-fact sentences.  Telling me
> to go read some books (I've read plenty) or go study 50 other
> programming languages is a dodge, not an answer.

Sorry, but the design patterns are *the* proof of the pudding of an 
object oriented system.  If you can't be bothered to read that book, 
look up Wikipedia, it's a lot more condensed there.  Actually, it's one 
of the few books about object oriented programming which is really 
important.

>> By looking at what we have so far as object oriented extensions, one
>> thing became pretty obvious to me: They don't intersect that well. 
>> They all cover some aspects of OOP, and forget some others.
> 
> You are surprised that different object extensions have some
> differences?  I'd be surprised if they didn't.

I'm not surprised.  I just want to tell you that yours isn't for 
everybody.  Neither is mine.

> If you can't focus on *Forth*

Forth is just extensible.  You can implement any OOP style in Forth.

> could you at least describe the
> particular
> details of OOP that you like in "languages A, B, C, ... "?  Just
> saying
> they are different is not helpful.  We know they are different.

This is a Usenet posting, there is a limited amount of time.  I can't 
give you the basic education you seem to lack.  I did mention particular 
details of different style OOP systems (in Forth, but that are the 
difference in other languages, too) below, and you did comment on them.

>> On the Forth side, we have discrepancies like
> 
> The following is the only part of your post that at least makes some
> sense because you describe the differences.  What you don't talk about
> is which way you think Forth should go and why.

I know which way I want to go, and you know which way you want to go.  
Wwe don't meet at the same place.  This was a failure.  The common 
Lisper had the same problem: Lisp is an extensible and very flexible 
language.  Different problems require different styles of programming, 
so one size fits all won't work.

>> implicit current object / explicit this pointer / object pointer on
>> stack
> 
> Object pointer on stack is most Forth-like IMO.  It can be passed
> around
> as with any Forth item.  I see no advantage to implicitly assumed
> objects.  Explicit this (or self) makes the most sense.  The principle
> of minimum astonishment (explicit behaviors) applies here quite well.

From my experience, implicit is what makes most sense.  Most references 
within an object are to itself (own instance variables, own methods), 
not to some other object.  The idea behind an object is that it is some 
sort of small module with words and variables, and while you are 
"inside" that object, these behave just like normal Forth words or 
variables.  The current object pointer (the this pointer) is the context 
you are in.  Most OOP systems use it for instance variable accesses, but 
for method invocations, it's not used that often.

Mini-OOF has object pointers on the stack - it's all explicit.  It's too 
cumbersome.  Anton's objects have implicit this for instance variables 
and explicit for methods - it's a mix between both concepts.  I've 
looked at his examples, and the majority of method invocations uses this 
as reference.

People are good at contexts.  This is not astonishing.  When I ask my 
girl-friend, what she's doing, she texts me "shopping", "watching TV", 
or "taking a bath".  No "I'm" involved.  Because this is not necessary 
in this context, and brevity is king.  We have nice grammatical rules in 
our text-books, but don't use them in oral language.

That's one of *my* primary objections I have to FMS - it looks so much 
different from normal Forth.  It does not need to.  When you ask me for 
a direction, where Forth should be going, then this is one: OOP stuff 
should not just look different, because it's OOP.  You need some 
boilerplate for a class, but you don't need to repeat that every line.

>> object method / method object
> 
> Please.  Have we not put this old non-issue to bed?

object method has won.

>> global scoping / per-class scoping of selectors
> 
> I assume you mean scoping message names.  The most flexible is message
> names with global scope.  This allows for more seamless integration of
> objects/messages with normal Forth use.  For example:
> 
> : foo ( ^obj -- )
>    print ;  \ print is a message.  How can foo work without global
> message name scope?

Well, please: This is one school of OOP - the duck-type Smalltalk 
school.  The other school is trying to tell you that interfaces matter, 
and objects may or may not implement a particular interface, and that 
it's good to have these scopes separated, because otherwise you end up 
with conflicts in your namespace.  Also, maximum flexibility is only one 
end of the optimization space, maximum speed is another.

>> vt / hash table / wordlist
> 
> Implementation details.  First decide how you want the object system
> to
> behave.  Lastly, choose the implementation techniques that get the job
> done.

That's ok if you want only one object system at a time.  However, as 
Stephen Pelc noticed, libraries that use OOP techniques come with their 
own OOP system.  How to use two of these libraries at once?  The OOP 
systems need to coexist.

>> early binding default / late binding default
> 
> This is a nit-pick detail.  If the class of the object is known at
> compile time, what is the harm of allowing the compiler to invoke
> early binding?

You can optimize as you like.  The whole point is that "early binding 
default" overoptimizes - it makes that choice even when it is not 
appropriate, forcing the programmer to write something different if he 
doesn't want early binding.

> Besides, FMS as it is now fully supports late binding for
> *all* message sends if wanted.  The programmer has complete control

Yes, the point is *if wanted*.  You assume that the programmer usually 
doesn't want this.  That's the wrong way round.  Assume the programmer 
usually wants this, and optimize if you can prove that it is not 
necessary.  If the programmer wants to hand-optimize something where he 
knows which class is used, and the compiler can't know, give him the 
tools.  Then it's "late binding default".

>> various styles of instance variables (Forth-like variables vs.
>> object- like ones as in Neon)
> 
> In case you hadn't noticed, FMS ivar primitives behave *exactly* like
> Forth variables.  But if the ivar is declared to be an embedded object
> then its behavior is as an object.  What is bad about this
> flexibility?

FMS does a right step here, too.  In Neon, ivars weren't normal Forth 
variables.

>> first class object pointers [+ multi-message passing] / cumersome
>> object pointers / no object pointers at all
>> 
>> selectors as xts / not usefully tickable
>> 
>> dot-parsers / parsing words / non-parsing words
>> 
>> single inheritance / interfaces / multiple inheritance
>> 
>> 
>> and more.
> 
> This is getting tedious.  Why not just put together an objects package
> that behaves as you think it should.

I've done this, 20 years ago.  It's now christianed BerndOOF by Stephen 
Pelc, because it really does what *I* want.  Other people want something 
different.  They all can't fully agree.

> Provide rationale for your overall
> design decisions and detail design decisions.  Can I assume that the
> ANS OOF package you ship with GForth represents that?

Yes.

> I think that is a
> more productive approach than simply pointing out that different
> extensions have done some things differently.  At the end of the day
> we
> have objects and messages.  Hopefully we can agree on that without
> calling the other ignorant.

We all can learn new tricks.

> Beyond that of course we have the issues
> of
> the relative ease of creating both.  Perhaps most importantly, and I
> see not much discussion of this, are the higher level tasks that a
> good
> Forth object system should be able to address.

That's the point about design pattern, which I addressed at the 
beginning of my message.  Yes, this is important.

> Dynamically creating heap based objects as needed?

Of course.

> Expandable/shrinkable object containers?

Certainly.

>   Iterating over a list or sequence of anonymous objects?

I got accused of illegal return-stack tricks when doing that.  We have 
this discussion as part of the quotations thread.  Yes, yes, yes, we all 
need that.

>   A discussion more like that.

Now you seem much more positive about this sort of discussion than at 
the start of the message.  Yes, the proof of the pudding of an OOP 
system is what kind of higher-level stuff, called "design patterns", you 
can do with it.  To discuss that, you should understand what design 
patterns are, and which design patterns have been identified.  Iterators 
are a design pattern.

>> Yes, and Neon makes me shudder.  This was all completely wrong.
> 
> There you go again Bernd.  You tell me it makes you shudder and is
> completely wrong.  A cold wind makes me shudder.  When someone says
> 2+2
> is 5 then that is completely wrong.  You just said nothing about Neon.

It simply got nothing of the elementary design decisions "right".  Not a 
single one.  "Right" as: what I would do.  Elementary decisions like 
order of method and object.  Late and early binding.  Instance 
variables.  The way you define selectors.  I simply was overwealmed, 
maybe I overlooked one or two correct design decisions.

Sometimes, programs can make me shudder, too.

>> You
>> argue that it was proven, but I've looked at it back when it was
>> "hot" and it was hate at the first sight.
> 
> Hate at first sight.  Yes, now I understand the problem with a
> Neon-like
> approach.  We can't have hate at first sight.  That would certainly be
> a
> huge technical issue to solve.  Maybe we can sprinkle "unhate dust" on
> it.

No, just don't have your design upside down all over the place.  I do 
feel something when I program, when I see other's code, and I do get 
emotional.

>> Now FMS fixes one of the worst
>> offenders (message-object ordering).
> 
> As I keep telling you, that non-issue was put to bed years ago.

If this had been a non-issue, it would have been put to bed a lot 
earlier.

>> This is why the Common Lispers came up with their meta object
>> protocol,
>> because they couldn't find a consense, either.  OOP is something even
>> worse than Forth: It's not just a family of concepts under the same
>> name, and this family has less in common than Forths have.
> 
> OK. So we are wasting our time even having this discussion.

Maybe.  The point is that it *is* possible to build common foundations 
even when the implementation details *and* the design decisions differ.  
OOP is quite good at having this flexibility.

>> The concept of a meta object protocol is to use OOP design principles
>> to allow these different styles to coexist and build on common (but
>> flexible) foundations.  This is not about "I'm right and you are
>> wrong", but it accepts that there are fundamental differences between
>> different OOP packages.
> 
> I think a multi-paradigm-super-flexible-whatever Forth objects package
> as a goal is a huge mistake.

That's not the goal.  The goal is a Lego toolbox of simple bricks to 
build whatever you want to, and still have it fit together with other 
Lego bricks.

> We will talk again about all of these
> same
> unresolved issues 20 years from now if that is the approach taken. 
> But then I truly hope I am wrong about this and we will all be able to
> use
> this uber-objects system in a month or so.  Shall I hold my breath?

You don't even understand why it's called "meta".  You are confusing it 
with the "do everything"-machine in Thinking Forth.  I'm not holding my 
breath.  A meta object protocol is a toolbox to build object oriented 
systems.  In such a way that you can hide your internal design decisions 
when others use yours.

E.g. if you decide to have your methods take an object on the stack, and 
I decide to have my methods to use the current object pointer, and I 
call one of your methods, it will (because it is called in my context) 
use the current object pointer.  Well, by pushing it to the stack, of 
course (so it's not an expensive operation and it is done at compile-
time).

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

Thread

Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-09 08:36 -0700
  Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-09 13:16 -0500
    Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-10 07:20 +0000
      Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-10 04:19 -0500
        Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-10 10:19 +0000
          Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-10 10:18 -0500
            Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-10 15:38 +0000
              Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-10 12:06 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-10 08:21 -1000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-10 16:17 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-10 11:58 -1000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-11 13:32 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-11 10:37 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-11 16:44 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-11 12:53 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-12 14:23 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-12 15:45 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 14:15 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 09:58 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-12 12:40 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 15:23 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 12:18 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-12 09:09 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-12 12:52 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-13 08:02 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 12:30 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-13 12:15 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-14 03:39 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-14 16:47 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-15 03:19 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-15 12:41 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-16 04:02 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-16 16:07 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-17 03:52 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-19 20:00 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-20 04:09 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-20 12:27 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 15:55 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 12:37 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-13 12:16 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-14 03:52 -0500
              Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-11 02:38 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-11 06:39 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-11 02:06 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-11 04:21 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-11 02:39 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-11 04:20 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-07-11 20:24 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-12 01:53 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-12 23:38 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 05:29 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-13 08:27 -1000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-13 22:45 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-13 11:11 -1000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-07-13 02:20 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 01:33 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-12 09:43 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-12 16:08 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-07-13 03:12 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 05:37 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-11 16:23 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-12 23:36 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-13 08:16 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 05:38 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-13 11:36 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 09:37 -0500
                partitioning words (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 16:41 +0000
                Re: partitioning words (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-13 22:31 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-13 22:03 +0200
                C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-14 12:55 +0000
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-14 20:45 +0200
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-16 14:34 +0000
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-16 15:24 +0000
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-16 23:18 +0200
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-17 11:33 +0000
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-17 12:05 +0000
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-17 19:08 +0200
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-17 19:14 +0200
                time_t Re: C interface Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2012-07-20 01:15 +0400
                Re: time_t Re: C interface anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-20 15:12 +0000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-20 16:04 +0000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-07-20 12:20 -0400
                Re: time_t Re: C interface "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-20 08:12 -1000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-23 15:32 +0000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-20 20:22 +0200
                Re: time_t Re: C interface Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-20 20:21 +0200
                Re: time_t Re: C interface stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-20 19:00 +0000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 00:21 +0200
                Re: time_t Re: C interface Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-21 10:37 +0000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-21 15:22 -0700
                Re: time_t Re: C interface anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-23 16:23 +0000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-20 14:35 -0700
                Re: time_t Re: C interface anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-23 15:24 +0000
                Re: time_t Re: C interface Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-23 11:03 -0500
                Re: time_t Re: C interface Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-23 11:17 -0500
                Re: time_t Re: C interface anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-23 17:12 +0000
                Re: C interface (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-19 17:10 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-20 11:15 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-20 20:18 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-20 16:27 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 00:21 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-20 19:49 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 15:42 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-23 21:02 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-23 21:31 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent mhx@iae.nl - 2012-07-21 01:18 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-21 11:59 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 14:43 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-21 19:36 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 21:41 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-22 14:13 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-07-22 09:11 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-23 15:34 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-23 20:05 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-25 12:52 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-25 23:21 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-26 14:16 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-27 23:18 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-27 16:13 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-28 08:21 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-29 01:07 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-29 07:47 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-30 00:50 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-23 21:10 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-24 13:38 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-25 13:58 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-25 23:22 +0200
                objects (was: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-26 14:49 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-26 04:30 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-26 04:48 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-27 23:31 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-30 04:40 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-21 10:57 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-23 21:20 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-07-20 11:21 -0400
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-20 19:48 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-11 14:04 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-07-11 09:04 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 02:59 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-12 22:58 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-12 22:06 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-13 05:44 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-14 16:10 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-15 03:26 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-16 11:13 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-17 04:02 -0500
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-17 12:35 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 16:14 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-13 20:13 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-14 13:09 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-14 20:19 +0200
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-12 11:02 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-13 02:20 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-12 20:34 -0700
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 16:31 +0000
                Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-15 13:07 -0700
      Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-10 07:24 -0700
        Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-10 08:06 -0700
          Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-10 10:20 -0500
          Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-10 15:26 -0700
          Re: RfD: Make ENVIRONMENT? obsolescent BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-07-14 21:10 -0700

csiph-web