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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 17:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f295d253-ca02-490b-b9b1-633e7af0411f@a40g2000vbu.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9007 |
On Jan 18, 5:10 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > 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. Of course, requiring it to lead you to a name entry rules out xt's in a variety of cases, so if it is an opaque value that can lead you to a name entry, its distinct from an xt. What's the difference between a "ut" and a "nt"? traverse-wordlist ( xt wid -- u ) ... where "xt" does ( x*i nt -- x*i u ) if u=0, traversal stops, otherwise traversal continues to the end of the wordlist. nt>name ( nt -- ca u ) nt>execute ( nt -- xt ) nt>compile ( nt -- x xt ) If the implementation offered other things that could be done with the nt, that would be up to the implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 03:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79839617-90ff-4d20-bb1a-4baf11ca4edc@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9015 |
On Jan 19, 1:36 am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Jan 18, 5:10 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Of course, requiring it to lead you to a name entry rules out xt's in > a variety of cases, so if it is an opaque value that can lead you to a > name entry, its distinct from an xt. > > What's the difference between a "ut" and a "nt"? Universal vs name (although I suggested neither, that's what I'm assuming). > > traverse-wordlist ( xt wid -- u ) > ... where "xt" does ( x*i nt -- x*i u ) > if u=0, traversal stops, otherwise traversal continues to the end of > the wordlist. > > nt>name ( nt -- ca u ) > nt>execute ( nt -- xt ) > nt>compile ( nt -- x xt ) What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )? > > If the implementation offered other things that could be done with the > nt, that would be up to the implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 05:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ba43a188-e0e5-4e86-8242-506788de767e@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9018 |
On Jan 19, 6:03 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: >> What's the difference between a "ut" and a "nt"? > Universal vs name (although I suggested neither, that's what I'm > assuming). Uh, yeah, that I'd caught, what I was asking was what is the *substantial* difference between a "universal token" and a "name token". I had though it was as Anton answered, that "universal token" was the approach of adding more constraints on the xt and forcing it to be an inefficient execution token in implementations where an efficient execution token does not always lead back to the name entry. Name token, on the other hand, is an opaque token that is distinct from the xt and so does never forces any inefficiencies upon EXECUTE when it consumes an xt. >> traverse-wordlist ( xt wid -- u ) >> ... where "xt" does ( x*i nt -- x*i u ) >> if u=0, traversal stops, otherwise traversal continues to the end >> of the wordlist. >> nt>name ( nt -- ca u ) >> nt>execute ( nt -- xt ) >> nt>compile ( nt -- x xt ) > What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )? It is an opaque input to xt in that behavior ~ it is often the execute xt, with the xt on top being COMPILE, but it can also be an xt that performs a special compilation action with the xt on the top of the stack performing EXECUTE on that compilation action xt. And it could in general be anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 06:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce237550-02d9-4e7e-91af-935b95e6a25a@d8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9024 |
On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Jan 19, 6:03 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > >> What's the difference between a "ut" and a "nt"? > > Universal vs name (although I suggested neither, that's what I'm > > assuming). > > Uh, yeah, that I'd caught, what I was asking was what is the > *substantial* difference between a "universal token" and a "name > token". I had though it was as Anton answered, that "universal token" > was the approach of adding more constraints on the xt and forcing it > to be an inefficient execution token in implementations where an > efficient execution token does not always lead back to the name entry. > > Name token, on the other hand, is an opaque token that is distinct > from the xt and so does never forces any inefficiencies upon EXECUTE > when it consumes an xt. > > >> traverse-wordlist ( xt wid -- u ) > >> ... where "xt" does ( x*i nt -- x*i u ) > >> if u=0, traversal stops, otherwise traversal continues to the end > >> of the wordlist. > >> nt>name ( nt -- ca u ) > >> nt>execute ( nt -- xt ) > >> nt>compile ( nt -- x xt ) > > What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )? > > It is an opaque input to xt in that behavior ~ it is often the execute > xt, with the xt on top being COMPILE, but it can also be an xt that > performs a special compilation action with the xt on the top of the > stack performing EXECUTE on that compilation action xt. And it could > in general be anything. The xt should know what it needs to do without external assistance -- i.e. it should do only one thing, which is return the compilation behaviour.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <396e8369-7a68-421c-afbe-8d08415e2282@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9029 |
On Jan 19, 2:21 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 1:37 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 6:03 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > >> What's the difference between a "ut" and a "nt"? > > > Universal vs name (although I suggested neither, that's what I'm > > > assuming). > > > Uh, yeah, that I'd caught, what I was asking was what is the > > *substantial* difference between a "universal token" and a "name > > token". I had though it was as Anton answered, that "universal token" > > was the approach of adding more constraints on the xt and forcing it > > to be an inefficient execution token in implementations where an > > efficient execution token does not always lead back to the name entry. > > > Name token, on the other hand, is an opaque token that is distinct > > from the xt and so does never forces any inefficiencies upon EXECUTE > > when it consumes an xt. > > > >> traverse-wordlist ( xt wid -- u ) > > >> ... where "xt" does ( x*i nt -- x*i u ) > > >> if u=0, traversal stops, otherwise traversal continues to the end > > >> of the wordlist. > > >> nt>name ( nt -- ca u ) > > >> nt>execute ( nt -- xt ) > > >> nt>compile ( nt -- x xt ) > > > What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )? > > > It is an opaque input to xt in that behavior ~ it is often the execute > > xt, with the xt on top being COMPILE, but it can also be an xt that > > performs a special compilation action with the xt on the top of the > > stack performing EXECUTE on that compilation action xt. And it could > > in general be anything. > > The xt should know what it needs to do without external assistance -- > i.e. it should do only one thing, which is return the compilation > behaviour. To be clear; "return the compilation behaviour" == "provide the compilation behaviour"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 14:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan19.154839@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #9029 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>On Jan 19, 1:37=A0pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 6:03=A0am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> >> nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )
>> > What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )?
>>
>> It is an opaque input to xt in that behavior ~ it is often the execute
>> xt, with the xt on top being COMPILE, but it can also be an xt that
>> performs a special compilation action with the xt on the top of the
>> stack performing EXECUTE on that compilation action xt. And it could
>> in general be anything.
>
>The xt should know what it needs to do without external assistance --
>i.e. it should do only one thing, which is return the compilation
>behaviour.
Sure, it's possible to have, for every word with default compilation
semantics (e.g., "+"), a routine that compiles it, i.e. equivalent to
:noname ['] + compile, ;
and it would give us a more symmetric and elegant way to deal with
interpretation and compilation semantics. But it seems preferable to
me to have a slightly less elegant interface and avoid the need to
create such a routine for every word with default compilation
semantics (i.e., the vast majority of words).
- 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 | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a657674b-c2e6-461c-af06-a9ac67be12ac@m4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9033 |
On Jan 19, 2:48 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > >On Jan 19, 1:37=A0pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > >> On Jan 19, 6:03=A0am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> >> nt>compile ( nt -- x xt ) > >> > What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )? > > >> It is an opaque input to xt in that behavior ~ it is often the execute > >> xt, with the xt on top being COMPILE, but it can also be an xt that > >> performs a special compilation action with the xt on the top of the > >> stack performing EXECUTE on that compilation action xt. And it could > >> in general be anything. > > >The xt should know what it needs to do without external assistance -- > >i.e. it should do only one thing, which is return the compilation > >behaviour. > > Sure, it's possible to have, for every word with default compilation > semantics (e.g., "+"), a routine that compiles it, i.e. equivalent to > > :noname ['] + compile, ; > > and it would give us a more symmetric and elegant way to deal with > interpretation and compilation semantics. But it seems preferable to > me to have a slightly less elegant interface and avoid the need to > create such a routine for every word with default compilation > semantics (i.e., the vast majority of words). The result of nt>compile and nt>execute in that case would be the same xt; then it's not necessary to have separate compilation semantics. At least, I can't see the need for such gymnastics. > > - 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 17:16 +0000 |
| Subject | How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan19.181616@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #9036 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>On Jan 19, 2:48=A0pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes:
>> >On Jan 19, 1:37=3DA0pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 19, 6:03=3DA0am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> >> >> nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )
>> >> > What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )?
>>
>> >> It is an opaque input to xt in that behavior ~ it is often the execute
>> >> xt, with the xt on top being COMPILE, but it can also be an xt that
>> >> performs a special compilation action with the xt on the top of the
>> >> stack performing EXECUTE on that compilation action xt. And it could
>> >> in general be anything.
>>
>> >The xt should know what it needs to do without external assistance --
>> >i.e. it should do only one thing, which is return the compilation
>> >behaviour.
>>
>> Sure, it's possible to have, for every word with default compilation
>> semantics (e.g., "+"), a routine that compiles it, i.e. equivalent to
>>
>> :noname ['] + compile, ;
>>
>> and it would give us a more symmetric and elegant way to deal with
>> interpretation and compilation semantics. =A0But it seems preferable to
>> me to have a slightly less elegant interface and avoid the need to
>> create such a routine for every word with default compilation
>> semantics (i.e., the vast majority of words).
>
>The result of nt>compile and nt>execute in that case would be the same
>xt;
Then you cannot perform the compilation semantics with EXECUTE,
whereas with the x xt approach you can.
It seems that you would have us perform the compilation semantics by
using COMPILE, (instead of EXECUTE) on the result of NT>COMPILE. Now
let's consider what would happen for words with non-default
compilation semantics, like IF. By performing the compilation
semantics with NT>COMPILE ( xt ) COMPILE, you get an orig on the
control-flow stack. That COMPILE, is not behaving according to the
standard stack comment.
Ok, one might argue that the xt is not derived in a standard way, so a
standard system is allowed to do anything with it; still, I don't see
the advantage over the other approach: In the COMPILE, approach I have
to have a different code path for performing the compilation
semantics, because I use a different word for performing (COMPILE,
instead of EXECUTE), in the double-cell approach I need a different
code path because the stack effect is different somewhere in there.
>then it's not necessary to have separate compilation semantics. At
>least, I can't see the need for such gymnastics.
There is some gymnastics necessary in any case, the question is where.
- 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 | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 09:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) |
| Message-ID | <e7656cee-a773-494f-b24f-dc394a9b776e@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9038 |
On Jan 19, 5:16 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes:
> >On Jan 19, 2:48=A0pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
> >wrote:
> >> Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes:
> >> >On Jan 19, 1:37=3DA0pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Jan 19, 6:03=3DA0am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )
> >> >> > What is x in the diagram nt>compile ( nt -- x xt )?
>
> >> >> It is an opaque input to xt in that behavior ~ it is often the execute
> >> >> xt, with the xt on top being COMPILE, but it can also be an xt that
> >> >> performs a special compilation action with the xt on the top of the
> >> >> stack performing EXECUTE on that compilation action xt. And it could
> >> >> in general be anything.
>
> >> >The xt should know what it needs to do without external assistance --
> >> >i.e. it should do only one thing, which is return the compilation
> >> >behaviour.
>
> >> Sure, it's possible to have, for every word with default compilation
> >> semantics (e.g., "+"), a routine that compiles it, i.e. equivalent to
>
> >> :noname ['] + compile, ;
>
> >> and it would give us a more symmetric and elegant way to deal with
> >> interpretation and compilation semantics. =A0But it seems preferable to
> >> me to have a slightly less elegant interface and avoid the need to
> >> create such a routine for every word with default compilation
> >> semantics (i.e., the vast majority of words).
>
> >The result of nt>compile and nt>execute in that case would be the same
> >xt;
>
> Then you cannot perform the compilation semantics with EXECUTE,
> whereas with the x xt approach you can.
>
> It seems that you would have us perform the compilation semantics by
> using COMPILE, (instead of EXECUTE) on the result of NT>COMPILE. Now
> let's consider what would happen for words with non-default
> compilation semantics, like IF. By performing the compilation
> semantics with NT>COMPILE ( xt ) COMPILE, you get an orig on the
> control-flow stack. That COMPILE, is not behaving according to the
> standard stack comment.
>
> Ok, one might argue that the xt is not derived in a standard way, so a
> standard system is allowed to do anything with it; still, I don't see
> the advantage over the other approach: In the COMPILE, approach I have
> to have a different code path for performing the compilation
> semantics, because I use a different word for performing (COMPILE,
> instead of EXECUTE), in the double-cell approach I need a different
> code path because the stack effect is different somewhere in there.
>
> >then it's not necessary to have separate compilation semantics. At
> >least, I can't see the need for such gymnastics.
>
> There is some gymnastics necessary in any case, the question is where.
OK, that I understand.
I've done it at a lower level, since COMPILE, and the header structure
gets the brunt of working out what to do with this xt. By keeping a
pointer before the xt, we can find the compilation token in the
header. Shown is a word where the compilation semantics are the
execution semantics.
begin-structure head%
...
lfield: head.comp \ [ gen "call" ] comp token; normally
generate a CALL
lfield: head.ct \ +---> [ ' compile, ] compile token action
lfield: head.xtptr \ | [ ptr to xt ] pointer to the xt
... \ |
end-structure \ |
\ |
\ +---- [ ct-off ] rel offset to head.ct
\ [ xt ] code (the xt)
: >ct ( xt -- ct ) dup cell- @ + ; \ given an xt, get the
ct
: >comp ( xt -- comp ) >ct cell- ; \ point to the comp
field
: compile, ( xt -- ) dup >comp @ execute ; \ compile xt on the
stack
: postpone, ( xt -- ) >ct 2@ execute ; \ fetch xt, execute the
ct
>
> - 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 | 2012-01-19 09:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) |
| Message-ID | <a463ba12-ef3b-4f2b-8a85-6542621e0506@m11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9038 |
On Jan 19, 12:16 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: >>then it's not necessary to have separate compilation semantics. At >>least, I can't see the need for such gymnastics. > There is some gymnastics necessary in any case, the question is where. In particular, producer or consumer? I prefer the gymnastics in the producer, so that the consumer does not have to program defensively against a range of cases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ebc138c-d597-4b98-a98f-35f5f8e69d76@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9036 |
On Jan 19, 12:13 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > The result of nt>compile and nt>execute in that case would be the same > xt; then it's not necessary to have separate compilation semantics. At > least, I can't see the need for such gymnastics. "in that case" ~ therefore you would need a flag to indicate which case is which. And then the specification of that flag has to forsee all the distinct cases that might arise in a more complex implementation. The ( x xt ) approach avoids the need to flag cases, since every case is the same at the level of the consumer: "execute xt on x". In a simple implementation, the xt is returned as "x", then the immediate flag is read, then if it is immediate the EXECUTE "xt" is return while if it is not, the COMPILE, xt is returned. If that does not suffice for some more complex implementation, then the more complex implementation can provide a procedure to cope with each of the more complex cases and return the xt that goes with each case. So, while it supports more complex implementations, it does not put undue burden on small free standing implementations, and it does not require the consumer to sort through a range of cases that may be returned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 12:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan19.132448@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #9015 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> writes:
>What's the difference between a "ut" and a "nt"?
With a "ut" NAME>INT ( nt -- xt ) and >NAME ( xt -- nt ) are noops;
actually, there would not be such words if we did not make a
difference between xt and nt (i.e., if we had a ut).
- 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 | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f1813c7.10244086@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #9022 |
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:24:48 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >actually, there would not be such words if we did not make a >difference between xt and nt (i.e., if we had a ut). What in ANS and Forth200x stops an xt being a ut? Nothing that I can see. After, that it's just a quality of implementation issue. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 05:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3b160440-1463-4043-9692-2a96ed5a161c@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9023 |
On Jan 19, 8:02 am, stephen...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:24:48 GMT, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at > (Anton Ertl) wrote: > >actually, there would not be such words if we did not make a > >difference between xt and nt (i.e., if we had a ut). > What in ANS and Forth200x stops an xt being a ut? AFAIU, nothing, but then again I Am Not A (Language) Lawyer. > Nothing that I can see. After, that it's just a quality > of implementation issue. Precisely, adding that constraint on the xt may in some implementation approaches imply a slower EXECUTE on the xt. I would rather an xt that is free to do its one thing well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 14:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan19.154141@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #9023 |
stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:24:48 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>>actually, there would not be such words if we did not make a
>>difference between xt and nt (i.e., if we had a ut).
>
>What in ANS and Forth200x stops an xt being a ut?
Nothing. The things I do with an nt and which you do with an xt have
not been standardized. So there is nothing in the standard that says
anything about them, nor about whether the nt and the xt are the same
or not.
>Nothing that I can see. After, that it's just a quality
>of implementation issue.
That would be fine, but as long as we don't standardize any of these
features, it isn't even that.
- 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 | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lxwwqw.azc@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8922 |
In article <55425cb4-628c-4adb-b539-10d27da10f45@i25g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>>
>> > - 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 -- )
I have that too in ciforths, assuming ``voc'' is a word list identifier
in the sene of ISO. It is called FOR-WORDS.
: WORDS 'ID. CONTEXT @ FOR-WORDS ;
>
>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 .
My xt has the stack effect ( i*x dea -- i*x )
I think FOR-WORDS must take care of ending the loop.
Now you must always define a new word for each use.
: my-ID. ID. TRUE ; ' my-ID CONSTANT 'my-ID
: WORDS 'my-ID. CONTEXT @ FOR-WORDS ;
If only nameless xt's were easier ;-(
: WORDS [{ ID. TRUE }] CONTEXT @ voc-iterate ;
would not be so bad.
>
>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.
Never needed this, but easy to make.
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 14:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <898ee1c8-2d0b-405c-a66f-8e802a3a27dd@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8943 |
On Jan 16, 5:20 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >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 . > > My xt has the stack effect ( i*x dea -- i*x ) > I think FOR-WORDS must take care of ending the loop. However then if the loop is supposed to terminate early, you have: VARIABLE end-word-loop : DO-STEP end-word-loop @ ?DUP AND IF ... ... THEN ; ... to repeatedly skip the operation if the early loop termination condition is met. Making a word that fits in with the other semantics that never terminates early is simpler: : DO-STEP ... TRUE ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan16.184108@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8920 |
Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:
>On Jan 16, 8:30=A0am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> 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. =A0Any 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.?
Partly.
>I really like the term, "introspection capabilities"! Is this an
>established term in computer science?
Actually, the more established term is "reflection"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_programming)>,
although "introspection" is also used
<http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Introspection>.
>> 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.
In Gforth this stuff (used in WORDS) is too low-level to be a useful
basis for a common interface; it reveals too much of the
implementation. I guess that will be true of most other systems, too.
- 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 10:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e7ceb7d-8be2-418c-bb22-fdcfc67ca43b@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8926 |
On Jan 16, 11:41 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes:
> >On Jan 16, 8:30=A0am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
> >wrote:
> >> 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. =A0Any 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.?
>
> Partly.
>
> >I really like the term, "introspection capabilities"! Is this an
> >established term in computer science?
>
> Actually, the more established term is "reflection"
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_programming)>,
> although "introspection" is also used
> <http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Introspection>.
>
As expected, from your second link above, Lisp has already been here
with "list-all-packages" and "do-symbols":
--
The list-all-packages and do-symbols forms enable a lisp program to
examine all symbols and these can be tested to identify integer
variables.
(let ((sum 0)
(ints '()))
(loop for pkg in (list-all-packages)
do (do-symbols (s pkg)
(when (and (boundp s)
(integerp (symbol-value s)))
(push s ints)
(incf sum (symbol-value s)))))
(format t "there are ~d integer variables adding up to ~d~%"
(length ints) sum))
--
Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xvcobbdfl.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #8930 |
Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes: > As expected, from your second link above, Lisp has already been here > with "list-all-packages" and "do-symbols": That is pretty crufty Lisp style and normally only a compiler or debugger, or some analysis tool, would do something like that. The more "pure" Lisp dialects (e.g. Scheme) don't have such features.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web