Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8896 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-01-16 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-01-22 11:03 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 04:36 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 05:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 05:34 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 05:10 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 05:41 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 06:06 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 14:30 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 07:04 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 15:21 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 08:48 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-16 09:28 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 10:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Bruce.McFarling" <bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com> - 2012-01-16 13:07 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 13:59 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 06:49 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 15:28 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 12:02 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-18 14:10 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-18 12:55 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 17:36 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 03:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:21 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 14:48 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 09:13 -0800
How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 17:16 +0000
Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 09:45 -0800
Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 09:50 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 09:47 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 12:24 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-19 13:02 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:44 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 14:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-16 22:20 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-16 14:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 17:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 10:39 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-01-16 12:27 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 20:12 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-19 06:00 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 17:32 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 18:55 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 11:06 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 03:39 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 16:48 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:15 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-20 09:51 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-23 12:25 +0000
RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 09:25 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 09:56 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-23 12:10 -0600
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 11:13 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-23 13:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 13:39 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-23 14:47 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 17:00 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-23 17:21 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 17:40 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 15:07 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 16:57 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-02-07 20:43 +0100
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-07 14:47 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-02-07 13:14 -1000
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-08 18:00 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-08 19:30 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 15:17 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-08 18:07 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-08 19:20 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-09 01:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 10:34 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2012-01-23 22:15 +0400
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 10:43 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2012-01-24 10:09 +0400
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 22:19 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-24 10:11 +0000
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-24 06:53 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-24 10:42 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-24 11:56 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-23 13:04 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 13:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-25 07:16 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 22:13 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-30 16:35 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-30 10:25 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-30 10:43 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-30 12:01 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-30 12:48 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 11:26 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 07:50 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 16:00 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 08:31 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 10:05 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 10:18 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 08:42 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 10:48 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 17:03 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:00 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-01 16:08 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 12:06 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-02 12:40 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-02 08:41 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-02 08:34 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-02 15:55 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-02 11:20 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-03 15:12 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-03 10:33 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-03 16:48 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-02-03 08:07 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 09:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:05 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 10:33 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 16:50 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 11:07 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 09:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:09 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 09:29 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:17 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 11:01 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 04:11 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 06:27 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 11:32 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 10:32 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-01 11:03 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-02-01 20:34 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 12:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 11:09 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-03 12:53 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 19:04 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 04:03 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 12:15 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-05 14:28 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-05 17:00 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 04:23 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 11:37 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 11:58 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 12:26 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 04:27 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 15:06 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 16:30 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 13:19 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 14:55 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 19:13 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-05 05:35 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-07 11:55 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 11:29 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-07 14:53 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 15:18 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-05 05:51 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-24 09:21 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 05:35 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 16:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-16 10:32 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-17 07:35 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-17 10:08 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-18 00:42 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 13:53 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-18 07:24 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-18 21:27 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-20 00:01 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 16:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 02:19 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:46 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 07:56 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 08:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 12:28 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 08:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 11:23 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-19 03:10 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 03:08 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:50 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:16 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 07:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-20 13:10 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-19 17:50 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-19 13:48 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 17:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-19 18:14 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:48 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 12:22 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 15:56 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-20 05:52 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:52 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-21 15:45 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 13:58 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-21 21:15 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 18:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 03:29 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:11 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-20 18:43 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-01-21 08:45 +0200
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-21 12:37 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 17:22 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-22 18:31 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-22 11:03 -0800
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 04:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? |
| Message-ID | <152b663c-6530-4b03-803e-6476ed36ee67@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? While standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the wordlist as a part of the language. Such a capability is needed to provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. For example, I may want to determine all instances of word name overlaps in all of the wordlists in the current search order. AFAIK, there is no standard way to do that presently. On first thought, the minimum set of wordlist traversal words needed are, a) Set the current node to the head or the tail of the wordlist -- only one is sufficient if we restrict ourselves to a single direction for the traversal. b) Advance to the next node or backup to the previous node (again, only one will suffice). c) Obtain the xt of the current node d) Obtain the name of the current node (i.e. name of the word) Note that the term node is only used descriptively -- there does not need to be an actual linked list in the underlying system implementation of wordlists. The above set of functions should be independent of the implementation details, but maybe I'm overlooking something. Perhaps embedded systems do not retain word names in their run-time environment (but, then, emdedded systems do not have to support this set of words). Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. What is the existing practice in Forth systems? Krishna
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 05:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c147a80-dc9f-4649-8157-43888224da91@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8896 |
On Jan 16, 12:36 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? While > standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > wordlist as a part of the language. Such a capability is needed to > provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. For example, I may > want to determine all instances of word name overlaps in all of the > wordlists in the current search order. AFAIK, there is no standard way > to do that presently. > > On first thought, the minimum set of wordlist traversal words needed > are, > > a) Set the current node to the head or the tail of the wordlist -- > only one is sufficient if we restrict ourselves to a single direction > for the traversal. > > b) Advance to the next node or backup to the previous node (again, > only one will suffice). > > c) Obtain the xt of the current node > > d) Obtain the name of the current node (i.e. name of the word) > > Note that the term node is only used descriptively -- there does not > need to be an actual linked list in the underlying system > implementation of wordlists. The above set of functions should be > independent of the implementation details, but maybe I'm overlooking > something. Perhaps embedded systems do not retain word names in their > run-time environment (but, then, emdedded systems do not have to > support this set of words). > > Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > Krishna I'm inclined to agree. As you point out, embedded or tethered systems may not maintain a dictionary, but I would agree that there is some mileage in looking at an optional word-set to provide wordlist manipulation facilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 05:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c0d09be8-1b63-4fe5-b19d-b44d17ed713d@u20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8897 |
On Jan 16, 7:03 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jan 16, 12:36 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > > wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > > wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? While > > standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > > language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > > Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > > wordlist as a part of the language. Such a capability is needed to > > provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. For example, I may > > want to determine all instances of word name overlaps in all of the > > wordlists in the current search order. AFAIK, there is no standard way > > to do that presently. > > > On first thought, the minimum set of wordlist traversal words needed > > are, > > > a) Set the current node to the head or the tail of the wordlist -- > > only one is sufficient if we restrict ourselves to a single direction > > for the traversal. > > > b) Advance to the next node or backup to the previous node (again, > > only one will suffice). > > > c) Obtain the xt of the current node > > > d) Obtain the name of the current node (i.e. name of the word) > > > Note that the term node is only used descriptively -- there does not > > need to be an actual linked list in the underlying system > > implementation of wordlists. The above set of functions should be > > independent of the implementation details, but maybe I'm overlooking > > something. Perhaps embedded systems do not retain word names in their > > run-time environment (but, then, emdedded systems do not have to > > support this set of words). > > > Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > > What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > > Krishna > > I'm inclined to agree. As you point out, embedded or tethered systems > may not maintain a dictionary, but I would agree that there is some > mileage in looking at an optional word-set to provide wordlist > manipulation facilities. For the moment, I'm only interested in examining wordlist entries, and even then, only a minimal set of fields for each "node" -- its xt and name. I don't advocate providing words to actually modify a wordlist -- even if this is Forth, an interface to modify wordlists sounds like it would be begging for misuse. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 05:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4558dddf-6a7d-467c-8834-0b5f11abc3d7@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8896 |
On Jan 16, 12:36 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? While > standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > wordlist as a part of the language. Such a capability is needed to > provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. For example, I may > want to determine all instances of word name overlaps in all of the > wordlists in the current search order. AFAIK, there is no standard way > to do that presently. > > On first thought, the minimum set of wordlist traversal words needed > are, > > a) Set the current node to the head or the tail of the wordlist -- > only one is sufficient if we restrict ourselves to a single direction > for the traversal. > > b) Advance to the next node or backup to the previous node (again, > only one will suffice). > > c) Obtain the xt of the current node > > d) Obtain the name of the current node (i.e. name of the word) > > Note that the term node is only used descriptively -- there does not > need to be an actual linked list in the underlying system > implementation of wordlists. The above set of functions should be > independent of the implementation details, but maybe I'm overlooking > something. Perhaps embedded systems do not retain word names in their > run-time environment (but, then, emdedded systems do not have to > support this set of words). > > Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > Krishna One of the difficulties would be that the dictionary/wordlist is 'free format', in so far as an implementer is free to determine how his dictionary works. Therefore, his dictionary may or may not contain certain fields. For example, most dictionaries would contain a back- pointer (or link field) which contains the address of the previous node. Others, where the code and dictionary are mixed in the same memory space, may also contain a forward pointer also, but not necessarily! Some dictionaries contain the names of their words in full, including a length field. Some store only the first three characters, and thus don't have a name field. Some have neither, and store a hash of the word! The goal, from a standards perspective would probably be to find the lowest common denominator that *most* systems would have, and build from that. Quite daunting! Mark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 05:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c89ed4c5-d6e0-4502-9ed3-6e63dc954236@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8898 |
On Jan 16, 7:10 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jan 16, 12:36 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > > wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > > wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? While > > standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > > language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > > Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > > wordlist as a part of the language. Such a capability is needed to > > provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. For example, I may > > want to determine all instances of word name overlaps in all of the > > wordlists in the current search order. AFAIK, there is no standard way > > to do that presently. > > > On first thought, the minimum set of wordlist traversal words needed > > are, > > > a) Set the current node to the head or the tail of the wordlist -- > > only one is sufficient if we restrict ourselves to a single direction > > for the traversal. > > > b) Advance to the next node or backup to the previous node (again, > > only one will suffice). > > > c) Obtain the xt of the current node > > > d) Obtain the name of the current node (i.e. name of the word) > > > Note that the term node is only used descriptively -- there does not > > need to be an actual linked list in the underlying system > > implementation of wordlists. The above set of functions should be > > independent of the implementation details, but maybe I'm overlooking > > something. Perhaps embedded systems do not retain word names in their > > run-time environment (but, then, emdedded systems do not have to > > support this set of words). > > > Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > > What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > > Krishna > > One of the difficulties would be that the dictionary/wordlist is 'free > format', in so far as an implementer is free to determine how his > dictionary works. Therefore, his dictionary may or may not contain > certain fields. For example, most dictionaries would contain a back- > pointer (or link field) which contains the address of the previous > node. Others, where the code and dictionary are mixed in the same > memory space, may also contain a forward pointer also, but not > necessarily! Some dictionaries contain the names of their words in > full, including a length field. Some store only the first three > characters, and thus don't have a name field. Some have neither, and > store a hash of the word! > > The goal, from a standards perspective would probably be to find the > lowest common denominator that *most* systems would have, and build > from that. > > Quite daunting! > > Mark Right! As you mention, nearly all dictionaries will have a back pointer -- traversal in only the back direction is sufficient, as long as we can position the node pointer at the correct end of the wordlist, which would be the most recent word. An xt certainly must exist for the node, if it's standard Forth. The name field returned by a standard word can be a variable type, with an associated value to indicate the type of quantity (e.g. full character name, or partial name/hash value). That's about all we need. I think it's doable. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 06:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ea4c6af-1fde-497f-8930-f15e5e65a4a6@p42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8900 |
On Jan 16, 1:41 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Jan 16, 7:10 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 12:36 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> > > wrote: > > > > Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > > > wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > > > wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? While > > > standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > > > language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > > > Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > > > wordlist as a part of the language. Such a capability is needed to > > > provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. For example, I may > > > want to determine all instances of word name overlaps in all of the > > > wordlists in the current search order. AFAIK, there is no standard way > > > to do that presently. > > > > On first thought, the minimum set of wordlist traversal words needed > > > are, > > > > a) Set the current node to the head or the tail of the wordlist -- > > > only one is sufficient if we restrict ourselves to a single direction > > > for the traversal. > > > > b) Advance to the next node or backup to the previous node (again, > > > only one will suffice). > > > > c) Obtain the xt of the current node > > > > d) Obtain the name of the current node (i.e. name of the word) > > > > Note that the term node is only used descriptively -- there does not > > > need to be an actual linked list in the underlying system > > > implementation of wordlists. The above set of functions should be > > > independent of the implementation details, but maybe I'm overlooking > > > something. Perhaps embedded systems do not retain word names in their > > > run-time environment (but, then, emdedded systems do not have to > > > support this set of words). > > > > Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > > > What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > > > Krishna > > > One of the difficulties would be that the dictionary/wordlist is 'free > > format', in so far as an implementer is free to determine how his > > dictionary works. Therefore, his dictionary may or may not contain > > certain fields. For example, most dictionaries would contain a back- > > pointer (or link field) which contains the address of the previous > > node. Others, where the code and dictionary are mixed in the same > > memory space, may also contain a forward pointer also, but not > > necessarily! Some dictionaries contain the names of their words in > > full, including a length field. Some store only the first three > > characters, and thus don't have a name field. Some have neither, and > > store a hash of the word! > > > The goal, from a standards perspective would probably be to find the > > lowest common denominator that *most* systems would have, and build > > from that. > > > Quite daunting! > > > Mark > > Right! As you mention, nearly all dictionaries will have a back > pointer -- traversal in only the back direction is sufficient, as long > as we can position the node pointer at the correct end of the > wordlist, which would be the most recent word. An xt certainly must > exist for the node, if it's standard Forth. The name field returned by > a standard word can be a variable type, with an associated value to > indicate the type of quantity (e.g. full character name, or partial > name/hash value). That's about all we need. I think it's doable. > > Krishna I agree. If the new suite of words revolved the address of the back- pointer, that would probably be the lowest common denominator. So, for example (I'm using F83 here, but hopefully you can follow along): S" THING" FIND DROP Returns the xt of THING (the 'flags' portion (immediate etc) is dropped). From there, one could do: >LINK ( cfa --- link_addr) That gives us our back-pointer address/link-field address. And from there: >LENGTH ( link_addr -- length_addr) Gives us the address of the length field*. >NAME ( link_addr -- name_addr) Gives us the address of the name field*. >FLAGS ( link_addr -- flags_addr) Gives the address of the flags field*. *On a lot of systems it is common for a single cell to hold multiple datums. For example, the length of word's name, and it's flags (immediate, compile-only etc) are often stored in the same cell, as they are in my system. In this case, carnal knowledge of the dictionary structure would be required, and a potential portability issue exists. Therefore, a small set of extra words, supplied by the implementer could be proposed that abstract the inner complexities of the dictionary structure away from the user: @FLAGS ( link_addr -- n) Returns the flags of the associated word, right justified. Note the address of the LINK field is passed in. @FLAGS takes care of the nitty gritty. !FLAGS ( n link_addr -- ) writes right-justified n to the flag bits. ! FLAGS internally masks and rotates as required. E.g. if there are only 3 flag bits in use, and the user writes FFFF then only the lower three 3 bits of the FFFF are written into the flags bits (to guard against obliterating adjacent bits/datums in the cell). @NAME ( link_addr -- addr len) Returns the name as address/length pair on the stack (e.g. suitable for use with TYPE). !NAME ( addr len link_addr -- ) Writes the new name into the dictionary entry and updates the name length pointer, if present. If the new name is longer than the original name, the name is truncated. ... ... ... You get the idea! These words are already in use on my home-brew systems, which has > 100 users, so they are 'in the wild', at least in my case. Though my system is just for home retro computing enthusiasts. The above is only suggested as a starting point... "Grit for the mill" as we would say... Mark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan16.153029@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8896 |
Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:
>Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm
>wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a
>wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node?
Nobody has proposed it for standardization. And I guess it would be
hard work, because even pre-proposals for fixing FIND have led to
long, fruitless discussions because some people hate the idea of
tokens representing named words and want to use the xt instead (and
rename it into "universal token"), while others point out that this
cannot be implemented in some Forth systems without major
implementation changes. Any proposal for traversing wordlists and
accessing the words in the wordlist would have to take a stand on this
issue and would take fire from either one or the other side of this
debate, and would certainly not make progress.
Or maybe you can help decide this issue: decide for one of the
alternatives; of course the other side will not implement your
proposal at first, but if you have killer applications for your words,
there will be quite a bit of motivation to implement the wordset; so
either the first side will implement the words even though it does not
require other systems to adopt a universal token, oder the other side
will change their implementations to make it possible to support words
that require a universal token. The question is: Do you have such a
killer application?
In the early 90s some people (including me) discussed standardizing
wordlist traversal and other introspection capabilities, but that
effort petered out after a while. In the meantime I found hardly any
cases where I wanted such capabilities (and if I did. I did it in a
system-specific way).
> While
>standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the
>language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard
>Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the
>wordlist as a part of the language.
Yes, introspection capabilities have been neglected in
standardization.
> Such a capability is needed to
>provide some kinds of advanced programming tools.
There is a tendency among some to neglect capabilities needed for
building tools, because supposedly application programmers don't use
them (and apparently only application programmers count).
>Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully.
>What is the existing practice in Forth systems?
If you want to do such things, you use "carnal knowledge" of the
particular Forth system.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 07:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1a31b2b1-2362-4fb1-af90-ec7117d8813b@dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8903 |
On Jan 16, 2:30 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes: > >Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > >wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > >wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? > > Nobody has proposed it for standardization. And I guess it would be > hard work, because even pre-proposals for fixing FIND have led to > long, fruitless discussions because some people hate the idea of > tokens representing named words and want to use the xt instead (and > rename it into "universal token"), while others point out that this > cannot be implemented in some Forth systems without major > implementation changes. Any proposal for traversing wordlists and > accessing the words in the wordlist would have to take a stand on this > issue and would take fire from either one or the other side of this > debate, and would certainly not make progress. > > Or maybe you can help decide this issue: decide for one of the > alternatives; of course the other side will not implement your > proposal at first, but if you have killer applications for your words, > there will be quite a bit of motivation to implement the wordset; so > either the first side will implement the words even though it does not > require other systems to adopt a universal token, oder the other side > will change their implementations to make it possible to support words > that require a universal token. The question is: Do you have such a > killer application? > > In the early 90s some people (including me) discussed standardizing > wordlist traversal and other introspection capabilities, but that > effort petered out after a while. In the meantime I found hardly any > cases where I wanted such capabilities (and if I did. I did it in a > system-specific way). > > > While > >standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > >language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > >Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > >wordlist as a part of the language. > > Yes, introspection capabilities have been neglected in > standardization. > > > Such a capability is needed to > >provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. > > There is a tendency among some to neglect capabilities needed for > building tools, because supposedly application programmers don't use > them (and apparently only application programmers count). > > >Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > >What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > If you want to do such things, you use "carnal knowledge" of the > particular Forth system. > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs:http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard:http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2011:http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/ I feel your pain, Anton. However, I think things were a little different with FIND because we were talking about (IIRC) actually changing its behavior, so there would have been passionate arguments both ways. I think it's different with any forthcoming proposal on dictionary manipulation words, simply because it would only ever be proposed as an optional extension, so far less controversial (one would hope) ;-) Mark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan16.162153@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8905 |
Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>I feel your pain, Anton. However, I think things were a little
>different with FIND because we were talking about (IIRC) actually
>changing its behavior, so there would have been passionate arguments
>both ways.
No, the discussion was always about new words that perform the
functionality that FIND should perform (but with a better interface
and well-specified). And the main issue of contention recently was
not if we should do such a thing, but whether to use a "universal
token" (same as the xt) or whether to use a name token that may (but
is not required to) be different from the xt.
>I think it's different with any forthcoming proposal on dictionary
>manipulation words, simply because it would only ever be proposed as
>an optional extension, so far less controversial (one would hope) ;-)
Well, the token issue would have to be decided, and that's the most
controversial thing about the FIND replacement at the moment.
And I doubt that the universal-token fraction will accept a name token
in this proposal just because it is optional; after all, there would
have no problem implementing a name-token-based interface on a
universal-token system for the FIND replacement, either (the name
token would be implemented as universal token there), yet is dead set
against it.
And I also doubt that the name token fraction would vote for a
proposal based on the universal token, either, even if it is optional,
because that would mean standardizing an interface that they cannot
implement (at least not without significant changes to the internals
of system) for a functionality that they can implement (with a
different interface).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 08:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <48679607-8450-4fc7-b38d-bb9543774317@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8903 |
On Jan 16, 8:30 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes: > >Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > >wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > >wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? > > Nobody has proposed it for standardization. And I guess it would be > hard work, because even pre-proposals for fixing FIND have led to > long, fruitless discussions because some people hate the idea of > tokens representing named words and want to use the xt instead (and > rename it into "universal token"), while others point out that this > cannot be implemented in some Forth systems without major > implementation changes. Any proposal for traversing wordlists and > accessing the words in the wordlist would have to take a stand on this > issue and would take fire from either one or the other side of this > debate, and would certainly not make progress. > Hmm... I'm afraid I must not have been paying attention and missed this debate. Did it take place mostly in c.l.f.? > Or maybe you can help decide this issue: decide for one of the > alternatives; of course the other side will not implement your > proposal at first, but if you have killer applications for your words, > there will be quite a bit of motivation to implement the wordset; so > either the first side will implement the words even though it does not > require other systems to adopt a universal token, oder the other side > will change their implementations to make it possible to support words > that require a universal token. The question is: Do you have such a > killer application? > I won't claim a killer application. The query is in connection with some ideas for useful tools a programmer might use to examine potential issues with name resolution in a search order. Such tools are being considered for a future version of our modules system -- a first release of the modules system is close at hand, we believe, although recent bouts of clarity have forced us to re-examine and modify the design. Apart from the application, implementing such capabilities in my own Forth system seems to be almost a triviality. However, I wanted to understand what subset of the mentioned features were already being provided by other Forth systems, e.g. Gforth. > In the early 90s some people (including me) discussed standardizing > wordlist traversal and other introspection capabilities, but that > effort petered out after a while. In the meantime I found hardly any > cases where I wanted such capabilities (and if I did. I did it in a > system-specific way). > I really like the term, "introspection capabilities"! Is this an established term in computer science? > > While > >standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > >language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > >Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > >wordlist as a part of the language. > > Yes, introspection capabilities have been neglected in > standardization. > > > Such a capability is needed to > >provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. > > There is a tendency among some to neglect capabilities needed for > building tools, because supposedly application programmers don't use > them (and apparently only application programmers count). > I'm not qualified to comment on the division of labor among programmers, but, it seems to me that application programmers who eschew useful tools must spend a significant amount of time doing maintenance. > >Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > >What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > If you want to do such things, you use "carnal knowledge" of the > particular Forth system. > But Forth systems may provide non-standard words, within their Forth wordlist, for such purposes. Which systems have such words, and what are their names? If I find a set I like, I'd have no hesitation to implement them. > - anton > ... Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 09:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55425cb4-628c-4adb-b539-10d27da10f45@i25g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8920 |
On Jan 16, 4:48 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Jan 16, 8:30 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes: > > >Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > > >wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > > >wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? > > > Nobody has proposed it for standardization. And I guess it would be > > hard work, because even pre-proposals for fixing FIND have led to > > long, fruitless discussions because some people hate the idea of > > tokens representing named words and want to use the xt instead (and > > rename it into "universal token"), while others point out that this > > cannot be implemented in some Forth systems without major > > implementation changes. Any proposal for traversing wordlists and > > accessing the words in the wordlist would have to take a stand on this > > issue and would take fire from either one or the other side of this > > debate, and would certainly not make progress. > > Hmm... I'm afraid I must not have been paying attention and missed > this debate. Did it take place mostly in c.l.f.? > > > Or maybe you can help decide this issue: decide for one of the > > alternatives; of course the other side will not implement your > > proposal at first, but if you have killer applications for your words, > > there will be quite a bit of motivation to implement the wordset; so > > either the first side will implement the words even though it does not > > require other systems to adopt a universal token, oder the other side > > will change their implementations to make it possible to support words > > that require a universal token. The question is: Do you have such a > > killer application? > > I won't claim a killer application. The query is in connection with > some ideas for useful tools a programmer might use to examine > potential issues with name resolution in a search order. Such tools > are being considered for a future version of our modules system -- a > first release of the modules system is close at hand, we believe, > although recent bouts of clarity have forced us to re-examine and > modify the design. > > Apart from the application, implementing such capabilities in my own > Forth system seems to be almost a triviality. However, I wanted to > understand what subset of the mentioned features were already being > provided by other Forth systems, e.g. Gforth. > > > In the early 90s some people (including me) discussed standardizing > > wordlist traversal and other introspection capabilities, but that > > effort petered out after a while. In the meantime I found hardly any > > cases where I wanted such capabilities (and if I did. I did it in a > > system-specific way). > > I really like the term, "introspection capabilities"! Is this an > established term in computer science? > > > > > > > > > > > > While > > >standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > > >language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > > >Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > > >wordlist as a part of the language. > > > Yes, introspection capabilities have been neglected in > > standardization. > > > > Such a capability is needed to > > >provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. > > > There is a tendency among some to neglect capabilities needed for > > building tools, because supposedly application programmers don't use > > them (and apparently only application programmers count). > > I'm not qualified to comment on the division of labor among > programmers, but, it seems to me that application programmers who > eschew useful tools must spend a significant amount of time doing > maintenance. > > > >Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > > >What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > > If you want to do such things, you use "carnal knowledge" of the > > particular Forth system. > > But Forth systems may provide non-standard words, within their Forth > wordlist, for such purposes. Which systems have such words, and what > are their names? If I find a set I like, I'd have no hesitation to > implement them. > > > - anton > > ... > > Krishna My Forth; name>xt ( nfa -- xt ) ( get the xt for this name ) This isn't a FIND, as it assumes that the NFA (name field address) is in a correct header in a wordlist. The reverse operation is >name ( xt -- nfa ) ( nfa is a counted string ) I believe that operation is not possible in some Forths. To iterate over a vocabulary; voc-iterate ( xt voc -- ) The xt called has the stack effect of ( i*x nfa -- i*x x|0 ). Returning zero terminates the loop. Example; : x ( val nfa -- val' flag ) cr count type 1+ true ; 0 ' x ' forth voc-iterate . will print individual names and count the total number of entries in the vocabulary FORTH. It's a useful factor for implementing words like WORDS and so on. name>xtimm ( nfa -- xt 1|-1 ) returns immediacy, but it's only required to make FIND ANS compatible, since the compiler does not use STATE or check for immediacy directly. All the other, header-specific, words are based from the NFA address, and are specific to this implementation. They include execution & compilation tokens, the file and line number where the word is defined, and various other flags & values used in debugging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 10:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0182ac8d-826b-45b8-b93a-70f3c5341d58@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8922 |
On Jan 16, 11:28 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 4:48 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 8:30 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > > wrote: > > > > Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes: > > > >Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > > > >wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > > > >wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? > > > > Nobody has proposed it for standardization. And I guess it would be > > > hard work, because even pre-proposals for fixing FIND have led to > > > long, fruitless discussions because some people hate the idea of > > > tokens representing named words and want to use the xt instead (and > > > rename it into "universal token"), while others point out that this > > > cannot be implemented in some Forth systems without major > > > implementation changes. Any proposal for traversing wordlists and > > > accessing the words in the wordlist would have to take a stand on this > > > issue and would take fire from either one or the other side of this > > > debate, and would certainly not make progress. > > > Hmm... I'm afraid I must not have been paying attention and missed > > this debate. Did it take place mostly in c.l.f.? > > > > Or maybe you can help decide this issue: decide for one of the > > > alternatives; of course the other side will not implement your > > > proposal at first, but if you have killer applications for your words, > > > there will be quite a bit of motivation to implement the wordset; so > > > either the first side will implement the words even though it does not > > > require other systems to adopt a universal token, oder the other side > > > will change their implementations to make it possible to support words > > > that require a universal token. The question is: Do you have such a > > > killer application? > > > I won't claim a killer application. The query is in connection with > > some ideas for useful tools a programmer might use to examine > > potential issues with name resolution in a search order. Such tools > > are being considered for a future version of our modules system -- a > > first release of the modules system is close at hand, we believe, > > although recent bouts of clarity have forced us to re-examine and > > modify the design. > > > Apart from the application, implementing such capabilities in my own > > Forth system seems to be almost a triviality. However, I wanted to > > understand what subset of the mentioned features were already being > > provided by other Forth systems, e.g. Gforth. > > > > In the early 90s some people (including me) discussed standardizing > > > wordlist traversal and other introspection capabilities, but that > > > effort petered out after a while. In the meantime I found hardly any > > > cases where I wanted such capabilities (and if I did. I did it in a > > > system-specific way). > > > I really like the term, "introspection capabilities"! Is this an > > established term in computer science? > > > > > While > > > >standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > > > >language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > > > >Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > > > >wordlist as a part of the language. > > > > Yes, introspection capabilities have been neglected in > > > standardization. > > > > > Such a capability is needed to > > > >provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. > > > > There is a tendency among some to neglect capabilities needed for > > > building tools, because supposedly application programmers don't use > > > them (and apparently only application programmers count). > > > I'm not qualified to comment on the division of labor among > > programmers, but, it seems to me that application programmers who > > eschew useful tools must spend a significant amount of time doing > > maintenance. > > > > >Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > > > >What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > > > If you want to do such things, you use "carnal knowledge" of the > > > particular Forth system. > > > But Forth systems may provide non-standard words, within their Forth > > wordlist, for such purposes. Which systems have such words, and what > > are their names? If I find a set I like, I'd have no hesitation to > > implement them. > > > > - anton > > > ... > > > Krishna > > My Forth; > ... > voc-iterate ( xt voc -- ) > > The xt called has the stack effect of ( i*x nfa -- i*x x|0 ). > Returning zero terminates the loop. Example; > > : x ( val nfa -- val' flag ) cr count type 1+ true ; > 0 ' x ' forth voc-iterate . > > will print individual names and count the total number of entries in > the vocabulary FORTH. It's a useful factor for implementing words like > WORDS and so on. > ... Interesting. So you don't expose the underlying traversal words, and maybe they are not needed. However, I expect in some situations you may want to exit the traversal early, rather than being forced to iterate through the entire list. Also, for compatibility with standard Forth, I think it would be best to provide WID-ITERATE , which would iterate over a wordlist rather than a vocabulary. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 12:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4347b42d-67fb-4b49-9f8a-895a4fa2fb23@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8931 |
On Jan 16, 6:45 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Jan 16, 11:28 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 16, 4:48 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 8:30 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > > > wrote: > > > > > Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes: > > > > >Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > > > > >wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > > > > >wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? > > > > > Nobody has proposed it for standardization. And I guess it would be > > > > hard work, because even pre-proposals for fixing FIND have led to > > > > long, fruitless discussions because some people hate the idea of > > > > tokens representing named words and want to use the xt instead (and > > > > rename it into "universal token"), while others point out that this > > > > cannot be implemented in some Forth systems without major > > > > implementation changes. Any proposal for traversing wordlists and > > > > accessing the words in the wordlist would have to take a stand on this > > > > issue and would take fire from either one or the other side of this > > > > debate, and would certainly not make progress. > > > > Hmm... I'm afraid I must not have been paying attention and missed > > > this debate. Did it take place mostly in c.l.f.? > > > > > Or maybe you can help decide this issue: decide for one of the > > > > alternatives; of course the other side will not implement your > > > > proposal at first, but if you have killer applications for your words, > > > > there will be quite a bit of motivation to implement the wordset; so > > > > either the first side will implement the words even though it does not > > > > require other systems to adopt a universal token, oder the other side > > > > will change their implementations to make it possible to support words > > > > that require a universal token. The question is: Do you have such a > > > > killer application? > > > > I won't claim a killer application. The query is in connection with > > > some ideas for useful tools a programmer might use to examine > > > potential issues with name resolution in a search order. Such tools > > > are being considered for a future version of our modules system -- a > > > first release of the modules system is close at hand, we believe, > > > although recent bouts of clarity have forced us to re-examine and > > > modify the design. > > > > Apart from the application, implementing such capabilities in my own > > > Forth system seems to be almost a triviality. However, I wanted to > > > understand what subset of the mentioned features were already being > > > provided by other Forth systems, e.g. Gforth. > > > > > In the early 90s some people (including me) discussed standardizing > > > > wordlist traversal and other introspection capabilities, but that > > > > effort petered out after a while. In the meantime I found hardly any > > > > cases where I wanted such capabilities (and if I did. I did it in a > > > > system-specific way). > > > > I really like the term, "introspection capabilities"! Is this an > > > established term in computer science? > > > > > > While > > > > >standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > > > > >language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > > > > >Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > > > > >wordlist as a part of the language. > > > > > Yes, introspection capabilities have been neglected in > > > > standardization. > > > > > > Such a capability is needed to > > > > >provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. > > > > > There is a tendency among some to neglect capabilities needed for > > > > building tools, because supposedly application programmers don't use > > > > them (and apparently only application programmers count). > > > > I'm not qualified to comment on the division of labor among > > > programmers, but, it seems to me that application programmers who > > > eschew useful tools must spend a significant amount of time doing > > > maintenance. > > > > > >Some Forth systems may support the above functions partially or fully. > > > > >What is the existing practice in Forth systems? > > > > > If you want to do such things, you use "carnal knowledge" of the > > > > particular Forth system. > > > > But Forth systems may provide non-standard words, within their Forth > > > wordlist, for such purposes. Which systems have such words, and what > > > are their names? If I find a set I like, I'd have no hesitation to > > > implement them. > > > > > - anton > > > > ... > > > > Krishna > > > My Forth; > > ... > > voc-iterate ( xt voc -- ) > > > The xt called has the stack effect of ( i*x nfa -- i*x x|0 ). > > Returning zero terminates the loop. Example; > > > : x ( val nfa -- val' flag ) cr count type 1+ true ; > > 0 ' x ' forth voc-iterate . > > > will print individual names and count the total number of entries in > > the vocabulary FORTH. It's a useful factor for implementing words like > > WORDS and so on. > > ... > > Interesting. So you don't expose the underlying traversal words, and > maybe they are not needed. However, I expect in some situations you > may want to exit the traversal early, rather than being forced to > iterate through the entire list. Also, for compatibility with standard > Forth, I think it would be best to provide WID-ITERATE , which would > iterate over a wordlist rather than a vocabulary. > > Krishna voc-iterate is based on a wordlist iteration :-) To iterate only the first 10 words; : x ( val nfa -- val' flag ) cr count type 1+ dup 10 < ; 0 ' x ' forth voc-iterate cr . ." words"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bruce.McFarling" <bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 13:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f2fb2ac-618b-4ce7-9164-d9f725e7e505@l19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8931 |
On Jan 16, 1:45 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Jan 16, 11:28 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: >> voc-iterate ( xt voc -- ) >> The xt called has the stack effect of ( i*x nfa -- i*x x|0 ). >> Returning zero terminates the loop. Example; >> : x ( val nfa -- val' flag ) cr count type 1+ true ; >> 0 ' x ' forth voc-iterate . >> will print individual names and count the total number of entries in >> the vocabulary FORTH. It's a useful factor for implementing words >> like WORDS and so on. > > ... > Interesting. So you don't expose the underlying traversal words, and > maybe they are not needed. However, I expect in some situations you > may want to exit the traversal early, rather than being forced to > iterate through the entire list. Under that approach you *can* exit the traversal early ~ the xt replaces the nfa with either 0 or non-zero, on 0 the traversal terminates, on non-zero the traversal continues. However, the names in dictionary structures are allowed to be counted strings, counted strings with a reserved bit field, nul-terminated strings, strings with the count at the tail rather than the head, and etc. However, with versions that takes an xt with the stack effects: ( x*i ca u xt -- x*i flag ) ... that would seem to be a reasonable way to expose the range of different specific wordlist traversal processes in implementation- specific portability harnesses. Then: wordlist-iterate ( i*x xt wid -- ) This is more a library level approach than a language standard level approach.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan18.145924@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8940 |
"Bruce.McFarling" <bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com> writes:
>However, the names in dictionary structures are allowed to be counted
>strings, counted strings with a reserved bit field, nul-terminated
>strings, strings with the count at the tail rather than the head, and
>etc. However, with versions that takes an xt with the stack effects:
> ( x*i ca u xt -- x*i flag )
>
>... that would seem to be a reasonable way to expose the range of
>different specific wordlist traversal processes in implementation-
>specific portability harnesses.
That would certainly circumvent the universal-token vs. name-token
controversy, but the disadvantage is that it delivers only a part of
the information of a word. If we also want to know about compilation
semantics, or maybe other (non-standard features), we would need
WORDLIST-ITERATE2 etc.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9c181b28-e58d-4c04-a111-fc6df93aa68b@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8990 |
On Jan 18, 8:59 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > That would certainly circumvent the universal-token vs. name-token > controversy, but the disadvantage is that it delivers only a part of > the information of a word. If we also want to know about compilation > semantics, or maybe other (non-standard features), we would need > WORDLIST-ITERATE2 etc. Yes we would need another word to expose additional information. That's pretty much an intrinsic of a portable wordset of either type. For the first-word next-word nt>name nt>execute nt>compile approach ... you also need an additional word to convey additional information of a word entry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan18.162849@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8992 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> writes:
>On Jan 18, 8:59=A0am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> That would certainly circumvent the universal-token vs. name-token
>> controversy, but the disadvantage is that it delivers only a part of
>> the information of a word. =A0If we also want to know about compilation
>> semantics, or maybe other (non-standard features), we would need
>> WORDLIST-ITERATE2 etc.
>
>Yes we would need another word to expose additional information.
>That's pretty much an intrinsic of a portable wordset of either type.
>For the first-word next-word nt>name nt>execute nt>compile
>approach ... you also need an additional word to convey additional
>information of a word entry.
Let's separate two issue:
1) Producing an NT/UT vs. producing some of the information contained
in the word (such as name and execution semantics). That's the issue
at hand in this subthread.
2) FIRST-WORD NEXT-WORD vs. VOC-ITERATE: this does not play a role for
the other issue, so let's ignore it for now.
Yes, if I want to get information on, say, the source code location of
a word (used for LOCATE), I would need to add a NAME>LOCATION word or
somesuch. However, this word would work with any word that produces
an NT, whether it is FIND-NAME or VOC-ITERATE.
In contrast, if I add a VOC-ITERATE3 to produce this information, I
would also have to add FIND-SOMETHING3 to be able to get at this
information through its name without funny workarounds.
In conclusion, having a token for the named word leads to better
factoring.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 12:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4642168d-6000-4721-b12b-160ad6288447@e8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8997 |
On Jan 18, 10:28 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > In conclusion, having a token for the named word leads to better > factoring. Aha, you were focusing on the details of what the traverse-wordlist returns from the dictionary entry, not on the loop/flag behavior. I don't much mind whether that part of the behavior is: ( x*i ca u xt -- x*i flag ) ... or: ( x*i nt -- x*i flag ) ... either is fine. I am, of course, against an xt as a "universal token" that can always recover its name entry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 14:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3aef9069-2b03-43a9-94d5-a04e539e1b0d@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9000 |
On Jan 18, 8:02 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Jan 18, 10:28 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > wrote: > > > In conclusion, having a token for the named word leads to better > > factoring. > > Aha, you were focusing on the details of what the traverse-wordlist > returns from the dictionary entry, not on the loop/flag behavior. > > I don't much mind whether that part of the behavior is: > ( x*i ca u xt -- x*i flag ) > > ... or: > ( x*i nt -- x*i flag ) > > ... either is fine. I am, of course, against an xt as a "universal > token" that can always recover its name entry. Either a ut or an xt; as long as it's an opaque value and can lead you to an xt or a name entry, it matters little what it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 12:55 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <eb6dnRuPlLRP0IrSnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #9007 |
On 1/18/12 12:10 PM, Alex McDonald wrote: > On Jan 18, 8:02 pm, BruceMcF<agil...@netscape.net> wrote: >> On Jan 18, 10:28 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) >> wrote: >> >>> In conclusion, having a token for the named word leads to better >>> factoring. >> >> Aha, you were focusing on the details of what the traverse-wordlist >> returns from the dictionary entry, not on the loop/flag behavior. >> >> I don't much mind whether that part of the behavior is: >> ( x*i ca u xt -- x*i flag ) >> >> ... or: >> ( x*i nt -- x*i flag ) >> >> ... either is fine. I am, of course, against an xt as a "universal >> token" that can always recover its name entry. > > Either a ut or an xt; as long as it's an opaque value and can lead you > to an xt or a name entry, it matters little what it is. A word that returns the name as (addr len) might be acceptable, as it wouldn't constrain either the organization of the name field in memory or its location wrt whatever an xt is in that implementation. 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." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web