Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10270 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-21 10:37 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:34 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-26 20:40 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 15:00 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-27 02:20 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 08:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:08 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 09:35 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:47 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 12:33 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:24 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:07 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-27 00:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-21 15:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 16:36 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:47 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-23 07:48 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-23 17:28 +0000
Re: Which standard? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-03-23 20:51 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-24 00:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 08:40 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 04:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 19:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:03 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 19:20 +0100
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 17:54 -0400
Re: Which standard? "The Other Rod Pemberton" <dontaskdonttell@pemberton.it> - 2012-03-23 18:12 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 20:39 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:05 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 09:15 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 22:52 -1000
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 10:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-24 11:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 21:46 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-27 02:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 01:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 14:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-23 12:48 +0100
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 13:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-21 17:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 09:27 +0100
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-22 12:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 19:19 -0400
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-22 08:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:25 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:10 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-24 11:19 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 07:55 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:12 +0000
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 21:03 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 22:28 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 16:36 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 05:15 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 12:16 +0000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 01:26 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 15:37 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-25 22:24 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-26 10:49 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 20:00 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:21 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 18:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:21 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 01:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:06 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 10:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:31 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:25 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 01:43 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 15:56 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-25 09:18 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 06:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:04 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 04:39 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 22:29 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-26 18:09 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 11:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-26 20:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 11:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-29 00:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-03-30 16:13 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-30 13:01 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 09:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-31 08:18 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:43 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 10:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 08:22 -1000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 14:03 -0500
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-10 12:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 09:26 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-11 06:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-11 12:42 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 09:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 11:28 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Which standard? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-04-27 23:34 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-28 04:13 -0500
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 12:53 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 01:06 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 11:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 04:35 -0500
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 12:01 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 05:17 -0500
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:01 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 20:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:18 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:36 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:48 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 13:38 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 14:33 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 07:33 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 19:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-29 10:36 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-30 16:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-05-01 07:38 +0100
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-01 09:36 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-02 10:30 +0000
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 08:33 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:07 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 11:50 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-30 15:27 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 13:39 -1000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-05-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-05-03 09:16 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-04 12:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-05-03 14:27 -0500
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-05-04 01:56 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-05-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:18 -0400
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:35 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 16:43 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 08:09 -0400
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 10:27 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 06:19 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 07:49 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-10 12:38 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 23:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-27 12:04 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 16:10 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-03 09:27 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:44 +0000
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-05-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 05:47 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-24 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 05:44 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:52 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 12:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 06:24 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 12:20 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 03:25 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 04:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-22 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 22:14 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 23:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:41 -0700
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-27 08:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-28 01:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-31 13:46 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 08:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <deudnfnUkZEmDQPSnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11771 |
Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/12 7:43 PM, BruceMcF wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 7:56 pm, Albert van der Horst<alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
>> wrote:
>>> NOT? OR? and AND? are guaranteed to leave a well formed flag, while not
>>> requiring well formed flags as input.
>>
>> That I like. 0= as NOT? already complies.
>>
>> [UNDEFINED] 0<> [IF] : 0<> ( x -- fl ) 0= 0= ; [THEN]
>> [UNDEFINED] NOT? [IF] : NOT? ( x -- fl ) 0= ; [THEN]
>> [UNDEFINED] OR? [IF] : OR? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) OR 0<> ; [THEN]
>> [UNDEFINED] AND? [IF] : AND? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) 0<> AND 0<> ; [THEN]
>
> Yes. And for a complete set to add to the current standard:
>
> [UNDEFINED] NOT [IF] : NOT ( x1 -- x2 ) INVERT ; [THEN]
> [UNDEFINED] XOR? [IF] : XOR? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) 0= SWAP 0= XOR ; [THEN]
>
> Not sure how much of a tear-up this would present to Forths/programmers
> already using a cell-wise logical NOT. I guess any redefinition is a
> tear-up.
I suspect that defining NOT in this way would be unacceptable to
vendors because it would break too much code. And I would, of course,
vote against it because IMO it's a crap idea!
I would also vote against all the versions ending with with ? because
I don't think there's much need for them. IMO, that's because
something like C's
while (a && *a < lim) {
...
}
may be rendered idiomatically in Forth as
begin a while
a @ lim < while
...
repeat then
... so you don't need && and || because Forth's conditionals are more
flexible. As usual, Forth does more with less.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 10:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f9ea162$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #11774 |
On 4/30/12 9:16 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Doug Hoffman<glidedog@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/29/12 7:43 PM, BruceMcF wrote: >>> On Apr 29, 7:56 pm, Albert van der Horst<alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> >>> wrote: >>>> NOT? OR? and AND? are guaranteed to leave a well formed flag, while not >>>> requiring well formed flags as input. >>> >>> That I like. 0= as NOT? already complies. >>> >>> [UNDEFINED] 0<> [IF] : 0<> ( x -- fl ) 0= 0= ; [THEN] >>> [UNDEFINED] NOT? [IF] : NOT? ( x -- fl ) 0= ; [THEN] >>> [UNDEFINED] OR? [IF] : OR? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) OR 0<> ; [THEN] >>> [UNDEFINED] AND? [IF] : AND? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) 0<> AND 0<> ; [THEN] >> >> Yes. And for a complete set to add to the current standard: >> >> [UNDEFINED] NOT [IF] : NOT ( x1 -- x2 ) INVERT ; [THEN] >> [UNDEFINED] XOR? [IF] : XOR? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) 0= SWAP 0= XOR ; [THEN] >> >> Not sure how much of a tear-up this would present to Forths/programmers >> already using a cell-wise logical NOT. I guess any redefinition is a >> tear-up. > > I suspect that defining NOT in this way would be unacceptable to > vendors because it would break too much code. And I would, of course, > vote against it because IMO it's a crap idea! > > I would also vote against all the versions ending with with ? because > I don't think there's much need for them. There have been occasions where I needed a cell-wise XOR, though I'll admit it's 0= often. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 06:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69fe4475-741e-4cc7-844d-50e9d6f50a09@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11771 |
On Apr 30, 8:09 am, Doug Hoffman <glide...@gmail.com> wrote: > [UNDEFINED] NOT [IF] : NOT ( x1 -- x2 ) INVERT ; [THEN] INVERT is fine, there's no need to break my existing code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 07:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f9e7c51$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #11759 |
On 4/29/12 7:56 PM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article<4f9d2374$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, > Doug Hoffman<glidedog@gmail.com> wrote: >> Alternatively, one could modify the spelling of (bit-wise logical) NOT >> to something like NOT? for (cell-wise logical) flags. There is some >> precedence for this with the words EMIT? and KEY? both returning a >> conditional flag while EMIT and KEY do something else. > > That might be a good idea. NOT? OR? and AND? are guaranteed to > leave a well formed flag, while not requiring well formed flags > as input. I thought of re-introducing NOT in ciforth, but now I > think it is better to call it NOT? . I've no horse in the race except for the desire to have a NOT for control flow even if it spelled NOT? or something like that. Using "0=" is 0= as clear IMO (read 'is not as clear IMO'). It seems that the current standard for AND, OR, and XOR would lead us to using NOT only for a bit-wise operation, to remain consistent. >> In either case INVERT would be retained as a synonym for NOT and for >> backwards compatibility. >> >> I guess this dilemma stems from the bitwise-logical AND and OR being >> able to do double-duty for control-flow but not so for NOT (clumsy >> sentence!). > > The double-duty for AND and OR is false economy. > Maybe it is time to get away from it. Yes. Maybe it is. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 16:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efecbe12-7966-4a14-87c0-8d08e9434d37@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11723 |
On Apr 28, 6:53 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > It's simple: NOT is intended primarily as a precursor to IF, to reverse > the "truth" of the argument. INVERT is available for situations needing > a bitwise operator. Also UNTIL and WHILE ~ the ?BRANCH derived parts of loop structures. The two classes of stack arguments for IF UNTIL and WHILE are 0 and everything else. INVERT doesn't work to flip values between those two classes, while 0= aka NOT does. Both 0= aka NOT and OR work fine for if-value logic, but not AND ~ at least, not without conditioning the top value 0<> first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-10 12:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33f357d7-b229-4547-aab0-b1fb975e3915@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11107 |
On Apr 10, 8:43 am, Marc Olschok <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > (a) The previously produced TOS is a well formed flag. Then NOT will > preserve this wff, whether it behaves as INVERT or as 0=. > (b) The previously produced TOS is some computed number and most likely > not a well formed flag. Then I would indeed prefer to use 0= IF instead > of NOT IF because the former is exactly what I am doing: I test if the > TOS is equal to 0. Moreover, if I later look at the code 0= IF will > remind me that the previously computated TOS is perhaps not a well formed > flag. (c) The previously produced TOS is a value with 0 as an exceptional value ~ eg, address of next link or 0 if end of chain, name token or 0 if not found, etc. In which case, its not unusual to do: ... ?DUP NOT IF ... The benefit of not having NOT reserved is that a library can settle on an expressive NOT or a bitwise NOT and use that within its scope, in its general toolkit vocabulary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jne9le$b6h$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11122 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote: > On Apr 10, 8:43 am, Marc Olschok <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > > (a) The previously produced TOS is a well formed flag. Then NOT will > > preserve this wff, whether it behaves as INVERT or as 0=. > > > (b) The previously produced TOS is some computed number and most likely > > not a well formed flag. Then I would indeed prefer to use 0= IF instead > > of NOT IF because the former is exactly what I am doing: I test if the > > TOS is equal to 0. Moreover, if I later look at the code 0= IF will > > remind me that the previously computated TOS is perhaps not a well formed > > flag. > > (c) The previously produced TOS is a value with 0 as an exceptional > value ~ eg, address of next link or 0 if end of chain, name token or 0 > if not found, etc. In which case, its not unusual to do: > ... ?DUP NOT IF ... I would view this as a special case of (b) and would also use ?DUP 0= IF in this situation because. In fact, depending on the application I would probably use some other alias for 0= e.g. something like FOUND? in order to have more descriptive code. > > The benefit of not having NOT reserved is that a library can settle on > an expressive NOT or a bitwise NOT and use that within its scope, in > its general toolkit vocabulary Agreed. I have to admit that I rarely ever had use for NOT, so it is not such a vital issue for me. -- Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-27 23:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4f9b1399$0$6937$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #11689 |
Marc Olschok wrote:
>> (c) The previously produced TOS is a value with 0 as an exceptional
>> value ~ eg, address of next link or 0 if end of chain, name token or 0
>> if not found, etc. In which case, its not unusual to do:
>> ... ?DUP NOT IF ...
> I would view this as a special case of (b) and would also use ?DUP 0= IF
> in this situation because. In fact, depending on the application I
> would probably use some other alias for 0= e.g. something like FOUND?
> in order to have more descriptive code.
I consider ?DUP a particularly BAD word, because it returns a variable
amount of stack items. There are others (like >FLOAT, but that one is
usually followed by ABORT" - still ugly though) but this one is really,
really bad, since you'll find it in application programs.
Ok, consider this:
?DUP IF ... THEN
Now you decide to have an ELSE:
?DUP IF ... ELSE ... THEN
The stack diagram is now different at both sides of the construct. Now we're
rearranging stuff with:
NOT ?DUP IF ... ELSE ... THEN
Let's pull in another test like:
NOT ?DUP OVER BL AND IF ... ELSE ... THEN
Are you still with me?
DUP IF .. ELSE DROP .. THEN
Is simply much easier to maintain, because it is crystal clear what's on the
stack at any moment. Whatever you throw at it, you don't have to twist your
mind to keep on track. I NEVER use ?DUP in ANY of my programs for that
reason, because it is a sure road to subtle, hard to track bugs.
But maybe for most people here Forth is really a "write-only" language,
because they never do any maintenance.. What do I know?
Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-27 12:04 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <moOdnZ9myopoigbSnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11699 |
On 4/27/12 11:47 AM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
> Marc Olschok wrote:
>
>>> (c) The previously produced TOS is a value with 0 as an exceptional
>>> value ~ eg, address of next link or 0 if end of chain, name token or 0
>>> if not found, etc. In which case, its not unusual to do:
>>> ... ?DUP NOT IF ...
>> I would view this as a special case of (b) and would also use ?DUP 0= IF
>> in this situation because. In fact, depending on the application I
>> would probably use some other alias for 0= e.g. something like FOUND?
>> in order to have more descriptive code.
> I consider ?DUP a particularly BAD word, because it returns a variable
> amount of stack items. There are others (like>FLOAT, but that one is
> usually followed by ABORT" - still ugly though) but this one is really,
> really bad, since you'll find it in application programs.
>
> Ok, consider this:
>
> ?DUP IF ... THEN
>
> Now you decide to have an ELSE:
>
> ?DUP IF ... ELSE ... THEN
>
> The stack diagram is now different at both sides of the construct. Now we're
> rearranging stuff with:
>
> NOT ?DUP IF ... ELSE ... THEN
>
> Let's pull in another test like:
>
> NOT ?DUP OVER BL AND IF ... ELSE ... THEN
>
> Are you still with me?
>
> DUP IF .. ELSE DROP .. THEN
>
> Is simply much easier to maintain, because it is crystal clear what's on the
> stack at any moment. Whatever you throw at it, you don't have to twist your
> mind to keep on track. I NEVER use ?DUP in ANY of my programs for that
> reason, because it is a sure road to subtle, hard to track bugs.
>
> But maybe for most people here Forth is really a "write-only" language,
> because they never do any maintenance.. What do I know?
Having done and managed many years of maintenance on both systems and
applications, I must say I disagree. I think you're presenting a
misleading case.
There is certainly nothing unclear about
?DUP IF ... THEN
and
DUP IF .. ELSE DROP THEN
...is simply ugly. Of course, as soon as you want an ELSE clause, ?DUP
has to go. It is *only* for situations when you have no interest in the
zero case.
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]
| From | Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 16:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4f9d4b8e$0$6914$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #11700 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Having done and managed many years of maintenance on both systems and > applications, I must say I disagree. I think you're presenting a > misleading case. > > There is certainly nothing unclear about > > ?DUP IF ... THEN > > and > > DUP IF .. ELSE DROP THEN > > ...is simply ugly. Of course, as soon as you want an ELSE clause, ?DUP > has to go. It is *only* for situations when you have no interest in the > zero case. There is nothing misleading about it. Having a word that doesn't leave the stack with the same amount of items is a fact. I'd rather see an ?IF where ?IF doesn't consume the flag, so the TRUE and the FALSE clause are equally balanced. That would be proper design. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9fa39f2-09d9-49bf-b16a-c1665926d81f@h12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11743 |
On Apr 29, 10:10 am, Hans Bezemer <the.beez.spe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> > Having done and managed many years of maintenance on both systems and
> > applications, I must say I disagree. I think you're presenting a
> > misleading case.
> > There is certainly nothing unclear about
>
> > ?DUP IF ... THEN
>
> > and
>
> > DUP IF .. ELSE DROP THEN
>
> > ...is simply ugly. Of course, as soon as you want an ELSE clause, ?DUP
> > has to go. It is *only* for situations when you have no interest in the
> > zero case.
>
> There is nothing misleading about it. Having a word that doesn't leave the
> stack with the same amount of items is a fact. I'd rather see an ?IF
> where ?IF doesn't consume the flag, so the TRUE and the FALSE clause are
> equally balanced. That would be proper design.
Where there is both a true and false clause, why do you need the flag?
Well, sometimes its a value with additional information encoded for
the TRUE clause, which is the ?DUP IF case. Even if you *have* a FALSE
clause, the TRUE clause and the FALSE clause are intrinsically
different in that the branch value is redundant for the FALSE clause
and not redundant for the TRUE clause.
And in some cases, the single clause is *intrinsic* to the logic
rather than a design detail. For instance, if you are generating a
flag, then the reason for a branch is to shortcut execution:
(1) The shortcut logic for "A and B" where B need not be valid when A
is false, because then the answer is known, there is no FALSE clause
and the TRUE clause generates its own x|0 result, then if ??DUP is
"duplicate 0", then that is "??DUP IF", aka ANDIF {more commonly coded
as "DUP IF DROP if ??DUP is not a primitive}.
(2) The shortcut logic for "A or B" where B need not be valid when A
is true, there is no TRUE clause and the FALSE clause generates its
own x|0 result, then that is "?DUP NOT IF", aka ORIF.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Apr30.150849@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #11699 |
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> writes:
>I consider ?DUP a particularly BAD word, because it returns a variable
>amount of stack items.
Yes. That's why ?DUP is only used in very few contexts:
?DUP IF \ without ELSE
?DUP 0= IF \ without ELSE
If there is an ELSE, WHILE or REPEAT, ?DUP can be replaced with DUP
and a DROP can be inserted in the appropriate place, so ?DUP does not
make much sense. If there is no ELSE, one might replace ?DUP with DUP
and insert ELSE DROP, which introduces two more lines with the
indentation style I use.
>Ok, consider this:
>
> ?DUP IF ... THEN
>
>Now you decide to have an ELSE:
>
> ?DUP IF ... ELSE ... THEN
Or better:
DUP IF ... ELSE DROP ... THEN
> NOT ?DUP IF ... ELSE ... THEN
That's unlikely to be used with NOT being 0=, because then we know the
exact value of the flag in each branch, no need to preserve it. I
also find it unlikely that this would be used with NOT being INVERT.
>Let's pull in another test like:
>
> NOT ?DUP OVER BL AND IF ... ELSE ... THEN
If NOT is INVERT, you get a statically unknown stack effect in the
ELSE branch, so that's most likely buggy. IF NOT is 0=, ?DUP is
useless, as above.
- 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 | 2012-04-03 09:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m1wcxt.5e6@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #10645 |
In article <jl4m35$uqf$1@news.albasani.net>,
Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> In article <2012Mar26.110424@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
>> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> >"Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> writes:
>> >>Although I would
>> >>have a significant problem with NOT due to its history.
>> >
>> >In theory, after some time of de-standardization of NOT that name
>> >should have cooled down enough that we should be able to give it a new
>> >standard meaning.
>> >
>> >In practice, the last time it was discussed, it turned out that some
>> >people thing that NOT should be INVERT and some people think that NOT
>> >should be 0=, so I doubt that we will reach a consensus even if
>> >someone makes a proposal.
>>
>> NOT clearly is a logical transformation, so it should yield
>> a well-formed flag. Are there really people who think otherwise?
>
>Yes, me for instance. The main reason is consistency across the logical
>operations. It would be strange to accept AND, OR and XOR as bitwise
>operations without expecting NOT to do likewise.
>
>Observe that the logical nature of these operations is not diminished by
>this convention: these logical operations operate on the Boolean
>algebra 2^d (where d is the cellsize) and the bitwise operations do exactly
>what they should on this algebra. In particular, the sequence DUP NOT AND
>should produce the bottom element and the sequence DUP NOT OR should
>produce the top element.
Okay fair enough. It sounds reasonable. Now for a test.
c has the same two concepts and two separate symbols ~ and !
( INVERT and 0=. )
Read the following out loud.
if ( ( (*port) & ~MASK) != wanted )
"if the content of port , anded with an invert mask, is not equal to
wanted"
and apparently you would read (?) :
" if the content of port , anded with not the mask, is-equal-inverted
to wanted. "
I favour the first by a wide margin.
>
>--
>Marc
Groetjes Albert
--
--
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 | Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-10 12:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jm19uk$nrl$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #10799 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <jl4m35$uqf$1@news.albasani.net>, > Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> In article <2012Mar26.110424@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, > >> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> >"Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> writes: > >> >>Although I would > >> >>have a significant problem with NOT due to its history. > >> > > >> >In theory, after some time of de-standardization of NOT that name > >> >should have cooled down enough that we should be able to give it a new > >> >standard meaning. > >> > > >> >In practice, the last time it was discussed, it turned out that some > >> >people thing that NOT should be INVERT and some people think that NOT > >> >should be 0=, so I doubt that we will reach a consensus even if > >> >someone makes a proposal. > >> > >> NOT clearly is a logical transformation, so it should yield > >> a well-formed flag. Are there really people who think otherwise? > > > >Yes, me for instance. The main reason is consistency across the logical > >operations. It would be strange to accept AND, OR and XOR as bitwise > >operations without expecting NOT to do likewise. > > > >Observe that the logical nature of these operations is not diminished by > >this convention: these logical operations operate on the Boolean > >algebra 2^d (where d is the cellsize) and the bitwise operations do exactly > >what they should on this algebra. In particular, the sequence DUP NOT AND > >should produce the bottom element and the sequence DUP NOT OR should > >produce the top element. > > Okay fair enough. It sounds reasonable. Now for a test. > > c has the same two concepts and two separate symbols ~ and ! > ( INVERT and 0=. ) > Read the following out loud. > > if ( ( (*port) & ~MASK) != wanted ) > > "if the content of port , anded with an invert mask, is not equal to > wanted" > > and apparently you would read (?) : > > " if the content of port , anded with not the mask, is-equal-inverted > to wanted. " > > I favour the first by a wide margin. So would I of course. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am not against having NOT. Not at all. I just want it to behave bitwise as the other logical operations in Forth. On should emphasize that C does indeed provide to separate versions (bitwise and 0/1) for the other logical operators also. So my criticism would not apply there. And indeed, I would read != as "not equal" but from the Forth perspective I would think of "not equal" as = NOT . So it is the task of the relational operator = to produce a well formed flag, which is of course transformed by NOT into a well formed flag, regardless of whether it workes bitwise or not. -- Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hwfwguy@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-01 07:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33177042.3000.1335882300972.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynff7> |
| In reply to | #11108 |
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:44:04 AM UTC-7, Marc Olschok wrote: > So would I of course. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am not against > having NOT. Not at all. I just want it to behave bitwise as the other > logical operations in Forth. On should emphasize that C does indeed > provide to separate versions (bitwise and 0/1) for the other logical > operators also. So my criticism would not apply there. > What's your opposition to : NOT INVERT ; ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jnueiq$pvg$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11801 |
hwfwguy@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:44:04 AM UTC-7, Marc Olschok wrote: > > So would I of course. Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am not against > > having NOT. Not at all. I just want it to behave bitwise as the other > > logical operations in Forth. On should emphasize that C does indeed > > provide to separate versions (bitwise and 0/1) for the other logical > > operators also. So my criticism would not apply there. > > > What's your opposition to : NOT INVERT ; ? None. Did you actually read the preceding discussion? I was arguing against requiring : NOT 0= ; . -- Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-25 05:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jkmpj7$odb$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10427 |
"Hans Bezemer" <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f6e69ee$0$6866$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
...
> > If you like C's operators, why don't you define all the C binary
> > operators, logical operators, and assignment operators for Forth
> > and use them?
>
> Sure, introduce some more non-standard operators.
What do you mean non-standard? They're standard. ANSI C standard ...
Since you apparently think Forth has an insufficient quantity of operators,
I don't see how you're ever going to solve the problem of introducing "some
more non-standard operators". You don't write the Forth specifications.
> Would it have been so hard to make a family of logical operators?
No, it wouldn't have been hard. Apparently, that's not an issue for Forth
since it's simple to do and yet not present.
> Why not NOT, ANY, BOTH on one side and INVERT,
> AND and OR on the other side?
You mean NOT, ANY, and BOTH are logical operators? How do you intend to
check that the values to ANY and BOTH are booleans? If you don't plan on
checking, then how are ANY and BOTH different from OR and AND respectively?
> A set of logical operators would largely have
> killed the need for 0= and 0<> - and taken one word more. Big deal.
>
> We could have been writing code like:
>
> r@ 3 /mod swap not both both
>
> Instead of:
>
> r@ 3 /mod 0<> swap 0= and and
>
> It may be me, but I understand the first one better. It looks better too.
>
One of the reasons I like C is because the syntax for names of objects and
language elements are alphabetic, numeric, or both while the syntax for
operators are purely symbolic. It keeps the language easy to read ...
Converting part of those to C syntax (unchecked as to correctness):
r@ 3 /mod swap ! && &&
r@ 3 /mod 0 != swap 0 = & &
! is logical not, && is logical and, != is logical not equal, & is binary
and, etc.
C doesn't have an exact equivalent to /mod, it has / for division and % for
remainder:
2DUP / -ROT %
But, in Forth, / could be redefined to compute both quotient and remainder
like /MOD. However, it would only place the quotient on the stack and store
the remainder. Then, % could retrieve the remainder when needed, reducing
that to:
/ %
So, we could end up with something like this:
r@ 3 / % swap ! && &&
r@ 3 / % 0 != swap 0 = & &
Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-25 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da81d7b0-701e-492a-90b5-66e25bbc15d6@pg2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10427 |
On Mar 24, 8:43 pm, Hans Bezemer <the.beez.spe...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... Now we have 0<> to > fill the gap - ugly word. Why not NOT, ANY, BOTH on one side and > INVERT, AND and OR on the other side? A set of logical operators > would largely have killed the need for 0= and 0<> - and taken one > word more. Big deal. A bigger set of binary logical operators would only "kill the need for 0=" as a modifier to a binary logical operation. It doesn't remove the need for to test values for equality to zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58363b2a-25f8-4f6f-81b3-e65d472b0bea@x5g2000pbl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10402 |
On Mar 24, 6:54 am, Hans Bezemer <the.beez.spe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see a valid point. Say you're doing your AND thingy with any > integer. Now you're doing the same thing with another integer. Wow, > now it goes terribly wrong, because you ASSUMED that a proper flag > with an improper flag rendered a proper flag. > Sure, maybe you're aware of that when you wrote the code. Now you > maintain it and forget about it. Unless you've written a false stack comment, I don't see how you "forget" when maintaining that: ( flag ) ... is a well formed flag and: ( u|0 ) ... is a zero/nonzero flag. I can see that some logical manipulations could make it possible to lose track of the difference if you are not factoring, but if you're factoring well, it ought to be straightforward to keep track of things inside the word and return a well formed flag if you're stack commentg specified that you are doing that. Yes, don't write false stack comments, and when maintaining, read the stack comments you wrote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-24 05:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5cqdnXBtlLIeOPDSnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #10378 |
Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> wrote: > Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> A) What is bad exactly? >> B) Doesn't he mean bad POSIX I/O design? > (a) Bad means it could be a lot better. Just as reasonable means, it could > be better, but not so much. Consequently, very good means that it may be > very hard to get it better. And finally, excellent means, good show, I'm > not going to tinker with that one. Yes, always glad to be of service. He knows what "bad" means. He wasn't asking for a dictionary. > (b) Well, it does fairly well with C, but Forth is no > C. Consequently what may be good for C may not be so good with > Forth. > > In this case, it means you can SEE that this thing is literally > lifted from the C language and transplanted to Forth - which does > make it kind of alien - like a pig's head on a woman's body. A much > more Forth like solution could have been chosen. Such as what, exactly? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web