Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #7583 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2011-11-29 11:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-28 15:44 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 09:03 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 16:16 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-11-28 20:30 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 18:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bee <forth@calcentral.com> - 2011-11-28 19:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-11-29 06:49 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 11:14 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 09:10 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-30 06:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 08:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-30 01:24 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-01 18:25 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 09:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-02 06:23 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 19:40 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-03 00:58 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 18:33 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 09:35 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 10:44 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-03 19:56 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 10:02 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 14:56 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-03 19:22 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-03 20:42 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-04 10:42 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-05 14:15 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-04 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 14:23 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 07:05 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 16:03 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:21 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 14:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-08 01:00 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:18 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-07 23:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 11:02 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 11:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-08 07:48 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:20 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-12 06:35 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-12 09:00 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 20:26 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-15 00:53 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-14 10:21 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:42 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 01:49 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 11:20 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 15:21 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 13:05 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 21:13 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:45 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-22 08:29 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-21 23:03 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 08:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-23 08:50 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-23 07:01 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-23 08:27 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-24 13:38 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-25 02:37 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 09:08 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-26 12:17 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-27 07:37 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-27 03:48 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:03 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-28 08:59 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 04:23 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 14:01 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:03 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 10:40 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 23:16 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 14:25 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 09:51 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-30 08:08 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-31 18:29 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-31 10:54 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 10:20 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 00:41 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 15:43 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 03:22 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 16:58 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 15:00 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-01-03 09:08 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-03 10:28 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 12:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-12-22 17:39 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 09:13 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 09:26 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 10:39 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 12:00 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 12:16 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:44 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-16 07:37 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 19:42 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:44 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 03:25 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 12:37 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:54 -0800
PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-28 16:37 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 04:55 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 22:23 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:16 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Sieur de Bienville <morrimichael@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 13:13 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 04:51 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 12:12 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-07 23:31 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-07 07:37 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-01-07 16:58 +0100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:53 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:29 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 16:15 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 14:30 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:00 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 15:12 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:53 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:24 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:56 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:54 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-09 01:35 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-15 07:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-06 16:04 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 19:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 07:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 19:21 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-07 20:58 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-07 10:39 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 23:52 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 12:35 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:57 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 12:37 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-12-05 19:10 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 11:16 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 18:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-10 18:05 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-10 09:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-10 11:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-11 11:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-11 21:25 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-12 12:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-02 13:52 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-29 18:29 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-11-28 22:09 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 04:10 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 08:20 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 06:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 09:47 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-30 05:28 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 18:42 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-11-30 08:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 17:55 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 09:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-01 14:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 15:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:08 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 11:09 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 08:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-01 12:19 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:10 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-02 16:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 11:42 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-11-29 11:19 +0000
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? |
| Message-ID | <4ed4169f$0$6849$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
6.1.1250 DOES> "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition, referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a user-defined word that calls CREATE." So this is valid AND portable: Type `bye' to exit : array create cells allot ; ok 16 array myarray ok myarray . -1213636248 ok does> swap cells + ; ok 0 myarray . -1213636248 ok 1 myarray . -1213636244 ok 16 0 myarray ! ok 32 1 myarray ! ok 0 myarray ? 16 ok 1 myarray ? 32 ok Or is it? Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-28 15:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <865cded3-9c12-42e2-988e-b0eacbf674da@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7583 |
On Nov 28, 11:18 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > 6.1.1250 DOES> > "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition, > referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An > ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE." > > So this is valid AND portable: > > Type `bye' to exit > : array create cells allot ; ok > 16 array myarray ok > myarray . -1213636248 ok > does> swap cells + ; ok > 0 myarray . -1213636248 ok > 1 myarray . -1213636244 ok > 16 0 myarray ! ok > 32 1 myarray ! ok > 0 myarray ? 16 ok > 1 myarray ? 32 ok > > Or is it? > > Hans Bezemer It certainly works as advertised here on my system; and I believe it's valid given the spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 09:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ed491a5$0$6854$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #7584 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > It certainly works as advertised here on my system; and I believe it's > valid given the spec. True, I didn't see that interpretation isn't defined. But I think it's cool to append execution semantics immediately after defining a CREATE without a previous definition. The behavior shown is due to the definition in gForth: see does> noname : dodoes, here !does ] defstart :-hook ; latestxt noname : ;-hook ?struc exit-like (compile) (does>) dodoes, defstart :-hook ; latestxt interpret/compile DOES> immediate ok You'll see that it kicks the compiler into compilation mode when interpreting. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 10:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jb270p$va$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #7593 |
Hans Bezemer wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > >> It certainly works as advertised here on my system; and I believe >> it's valid given the spec. > > True, I didn't see that interpretation isn't defined. But I think it's > cool to append execution semantics immediately after defining a CREATE > without a previous definition. The behavior shown is due to the > definition in gForth: Yes, Gforth allows this. I implemented this due to the "no arbitrary limits" policy of GNU language ports. It is fairly obvious what a DOES> in interpretation mode should do. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 03:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fdd5bd40-a898-4b1f-be70-89fc3b155ec4@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7593 |
On Nov 29, 8:03 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > > It certainly works as advertised here on my system; and I believe it's > > valid given the spec. > > True, I didn't see that interpretation isn't defined. But I think it's cool > to append execution semantics immediately after defining a CREATE without a > previous definition. The behavior shown is due to the definition in gForth: > > see does> > noname : > dodoes, here !does ] defstart :-hook ; > latestxt > > noname : > ;-hook ?struc exit-like (compile) (does>) dodoes, defstart :-hook ; > latestxt > interpret/compile DOES> immediate ok > > You'll see that it kicks the compiler into compilation mode when > interpreting. > > Hans Bezemer My Forth simply generates a :NONAME definition that modifies the action of CREATE. This; : x create .a. does> .b. ; is compiled in two parts as : x create .a. ; :noname [ modify X for "DOES>"-like behaviour with this XT ] .b. ; Given that : x create .a. does> .b. does> .c. ; is ANS valid, then I would assume that any implementation that doesn't allow DOES> in interpreted state should be trivially modifiable to do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-28 16:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7efcab7-abe6-402c-8042-7e8c1e081fb3@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7583 |
On Nov 28, 5:18 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > 6.1.1250 DOES> > "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition, > referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An > ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE." > > So this is valid AND portable: > > Type `bye' to exit > : array create cells allot ; ok > 16 array myarray ok > myarray . -1213636248 ok > does> swap cells + ; ok > 0 myarray . -1213636248 ok > 1 myarray . -1213636244 ok > 16 0 myarray ! ok > 32 1 myarray ! ok > 0 myarray ? 16 ok > 1 myarray ? 32 ok > > Or is it? > > Hans Bezemer Doesn't work in kForth: -- kForth v 1.5.3 (Build: 2011-11-02) Copyright (c) 1998--2011 Krishna Myneni Contributions by: dpw gd mu bk abs tn cmb bg dnw Provided under the GNU General Public License. ok : array create cells allot ; ok 16 array myarray ok myarray . 140114648 ok does> swap cells + ; Line 4: Compiler Error(2): End of definition with no beginning does> swap cells + ; -- Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-28 20:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4ed435a4$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #7583 |
On 11/28/11 6:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > 6.1.1250 DOES> > "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition, > referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An > ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE." You left out: 6.1.1250 DOES> Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined. > So this is valid AND portable: Since you are using DOES> in an undefined manner it doesn't seem likely that it's portable. FWIW, Carbon MacForth will only accept DOES> during compilation (i.e., your code snippet didn't work). -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-28 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <752a7f43-e7b1-4d8f-8114-7e3bdddc97ef@20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7583 |
On Nov 28, 5:18 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > 6.1.1250 DOES> > "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition, > referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An > ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE." > > So this is valid AND portable: > > Type `bye' to exit > : array create cells allot ; ok > 16 array myarray ok > myarray . -1213636248 ok > does> swap cells + ; ok > 0 myarray . -1213636248 ok > 1 myarray . -1213636244 ok > 16 0 myarray ! ok > 32 1 myarray ! ok > 0 myarray ? 16 ok > 1 myarray ? 32 ok > > Or is it? > > Hans Bezemer I believe the following should be standard, and portable: -- : todo1 does> swap cells + ; : array create cells allot ; -- Then, 16 array myarray myarray . todo1 \ <-- gives myarray its execution behavior \ etc. So, if you're looking to assign execution behavior to a word after it has been created with a defining word, and choose among a list of behaviors, you should be able to do: -- : todo1 does> ... ; : todo2 does> ... ; \etc. : array create ... ; <n> array myarray todo<m> \ choose among several execution behaviors -- Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bee <forth@calcentral.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-28 19:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <04b41ba9-e69d-45e8-8f19-93b4061d6e30@u1g2000prl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7583 |
On Nov 28, 3:18 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > 6.1.1250 DOES> > "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition, > referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An > ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE." > > So this is valid AND portable: > > Type `bye' to exit > : array create cells allot ; ok > 16 array myarray ok > myarray . -1213636248 ok > does> swap cells + ; ok > 0 myarray . -1213636248 ok > 1 myarray . -1213636244 ok > 16 0 myarray ! ok > 32 1 myarray ! ok > 0 myarray ? 16 ok > 1 myarray ? 32 ok > > Or is it? > > Hans Bezemer No that is not portable. But should be is: : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output DOES> C@ BASE @ >R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ; CREATE .B ( n -- ) 2 C, .rno CREATE .O ( n -- ) 8 C, .rno CREATE .D ( n -- ) 10 C, .rno CREATE .H ( n -- ) 16 C, .rno -Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 06:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ed47263$0$6562$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #7589 |
On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote: > But should be is: > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ; You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE: 6.1.1250 DOES> does CORE ... An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a user-defined word that calls CREATE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 03:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6ab92624-e5b9-419b-a837-02c72a495102@v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7591 |
On Nov 29, 5:49 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote: > On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote: > > > But should be is: > > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output > > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ; > > You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE: > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > does CORE > ... > An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE. You missed what followed? CREATE .B ( n -- ) 2 C, .rno ^^^^^^
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 11:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jb3sev$1pv$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7601 |
Alex McDonald wrote:
> On Nov 29, 5:49 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote:
> >
> > > But should be is:
> >
> > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output
> > > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ;
> >
> > You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE:
> >
> > 6.1.1250 DOES>
> > does CORE
> > ...
> > An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a
> > user-defined word that calls CREATE.
>
> You missed what followed?
>
> CREATE .B ( n -- ) 2 C, .rno
> ^^^^^^
.RNO didn't CREATE the current definition so all bets are off.
6.1.1250 DOES>
...
Compilation: ( C: colon-sys1 -- colon-sys2 )
Append the run-time semantics below to the current definition. ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ed5e4c1$0$6852$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #7620 |
Ed wrote: > .RNO didn't CREATE the current definition so all bets are off. > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > ... > Compilation: ( C: colon-sys1 -- colon-sys2 ) > > Append the run-time semantics below to the current definition. ... Depends on that you define as "current definition". If this is the same as "most recent definition" then I don't see any problems. The TC doesn't go any further than "typical use" - it doesn't elaborate and did away with SMUDGE. So how many options do implementors have? Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 06:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4368110.745.1322662780927.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbjs5> |
| In reply to | #7633 |
On Wednesday, 30 November 2011 08:10:39 UTC, Hans Bezemer wrote: > Ed wrote: > > .RNO didn't CREATE the current definition so all bets are off. > > > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > > ... > > Compilation: ( C: colon-sys1 -- colon-sys2 ) > > > > Append the run-time semantics below to the current definition. ... > Depends on that you define as "current definition". If this is the same > as "most recent definition" then I don't see any problems. The TC doesn't > go any further than "typical use" - it doesn't elaborate and did away with > SMUDGE. So how many options do implementors have? > > Hans Bezemer The "current definition" in this case is ".RNO". It has to be. This happens when DOES> is compiled, so any child words that the definition creates when it is executed do not yet exist. The run-time semantics appended by DOES> can be compared to IMMEDIATE - both modify the most recent definition. I don't see any reason not to use the same mechanism to find the most recent definition in each case, though it doesn't make much sense for DOES> to modify anything that has not been defined by CREATE. I suppose it is just possible that a DOES> which assumes that a CREATE has been previously compile in the current definition could work by modifying that code at compile time, but I don't see how or why that might be done. In any case, the fact that : CREATE ... DOES> ... DOES> ... : is Standard shows that : ... DOES> ... ; must also be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <478df667-1c3c-43b2-b1a9-901b07068a45@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7641 |
On Nov 30, 9:19 am, JennyB <jennybr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The run-time semantics appended by DOES> can be compared to IMMEDIATE
> - both modify the most recent definition. I don't see any reason
> not to use the same mechanism to find the most recent definition
> in each case, though it doesn't make much sense for DOES> to modify
> anything that has not been defined by CREATE.
This is, indeed, something to keep in mind for people writing code
that they intend to port ~ your system may not use CREATE as a factor
of words like : or CONSTANT or VARIABLE but another system certainly
may, so when CREATE and the DOES> are in different words, the word
containing DOES> has to be used *like* IMMEDIATE, with no other
defining words in between.
However, if Ed is saying that CREATE and DOES> have to be in the same
word, that simply disagrees with the explicit specification of DOES> ~
its absurd to suggest that the "current definition" in a section on
compilation semantics is anything other than the word currently being
compiled that contains DOES> and its absurd to suggest that "the most
recent definition" in a section on the execution semantics is anything
but the definition most recently compiled into the dictionary by a
CREATE, at the time that the behavior compiled by DOES> executes ...
given that "definition" is defined as:
"definition:
A Forth execution procedure compiled into the dictionary."
An implementation that imposed that constraint would be a non-standard
implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 01:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c156fbe-2fab-4339-91d3-b7aa685ffda6@i8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7620 |
On Nov 30, 12:14 am, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > > On Nov 29, 5:49 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote: > > > On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote: > > > > > But should be is: > > > > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output > > > > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ; > > > > You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE: > > > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > > > does CORE > > > ... > > > An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > > > user-defined word that calls CREATE. > > > You missed what followed? > > > CREATE .B ( n -- ) 2 C, .rno > > ^^^^^^ > > .RNO didn't CREATE the current definition so all bets are off. > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > ... > Compilation: ( C: colon-sys1 -- colon-sys2 ) > > Append the run-time semantics below to the current definition. ... DOES> doesn't know what word contains the CREATE; how would it know and why would it care? The definition DOES> is modifying has to, in the words of the spec, be some word that is defined by CREATE and that's not necessarily true of .RNO. "An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a user-defined word that calls CREATE."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 18:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jb7a3u$ngk$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7636 |
Alex McDonald wrote:
> On Nov 30, 12:14 am, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > Alex McDonald wrote:
> > > On Nov 29, 5:49 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote:
> >
> > > > > But should be is:
> >
> > > > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output
> > > > > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ;
> >
> > > > You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE:
> >
> > > > 6.1.1250 DOES>
> > > > does CORE
> > > > ...
> > > > An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a
> > > > user-defined word that calls CREATE.
> >
> > > You missed what followed?
> >
> > > CREATE .B ( n -- ) 2 C, .rno
> > > ^^^^^^
> >
> > .RNO didn't CREATE the current definition so all bets are off.
> >
> > 6.1.1250 DOES>
> > ...
> > Compilation: ( C: colon-sys1 -- colon-sys2 )
> >
> > Append the run-time semantics below to the current definition. ...
>
> DOES> doesn't know what word contains the CREATE; how would it know
> and why would it care? The definition DOES> is modifying has to, in
> the words of the spec, be some word that is defined by CREATE and
> that's not necessarily true of .RNO.
> ...
The purpose of DOES> in forth is to allow creation of defining words.
Definers consist of two parts - a compile-time part and run-time part,
in the form:
A.6.1.1250 DOES>
Typical use: : X ... DOES> ... ;
DOES> terminates the compile-time part of the current definition
(the definer) and appends the subsequent run-time semantics to
the child CREATEd by the compile-time part.
Since .RNO doesn't have a compile-time part it's not a defining
word. Not being a definer, using DOES> was illegal (IMO).
That Bill's use of DOES> worked and did what he wanted is cute
but immaterial. If it doesn't provide anything beyond what a defining
word would do (does it?) then there is no reason to use it, or for a
Standard to support it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 09:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <06f5e125-d915-4a2f-bf91-7da1fe6dea4b@m7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7660 |
On Dec 1, 2:25 am, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > The purpose of DOES> in forth is to allow creation of defining words. > Definers consist of two parts - a compile-time part and run-time part, > in the form: > A.6.1.1250 DOES> > Typical use: : X ... DOES> ... ; That is the form for the typical use, yes. > DOES> terminates the compile-time part of the current definition > (the definer) and appends the subsequent run-time semantics to > the child CREATEd by the compile-time part. However, the Forth94 specification defines >DOES by its *behavior* rather than by the form in which it is typically used. That behavior is quite clearly spelled out: what it does when compiled into a word, and what it does when the word that it is compiled into executes it. > Since .RNO doesn't have a compile-time part it's not a defining > word. Not being a definer, using DOES> was illegal (IMO). DOES> compiled into .RNO is required to perform the desired behavior when .RNO executes, and so it is quite clearly compliant with the standard. An implementation which does not provide that behavior when .RNO is executed is a non-compliant implementation. Its true that the CREATEd definition that DOES> modifies is *typically* created by the definition containing DOES> ... but to be *constrained* to that use, the constraint would have to be in the specification of DOES> IOW: : <name> ... CREATE ... DOES> ... ; ... is not a syntax. Its the result of the behavior of CREATE and the behavior of DOES>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ed88bd7$0$6959$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #7666 |
BruceMcF wrote: > Its true that the CREATEd definition that DOES> modifies is > typically created by the definition containing DOES> ... but to be > constrained to that use, the constraint would have to be in the > specification of DOES> > > IOW: > : <name> ... CREATE ... DOES> ... ; > ... is not a syntax. Its the result of the behavior of CREATE and the > behavior of DOES> So true. It is for that reason that I'd like to have seen a somewhat more elaborate rationale for DOES>, just because there are some aspects that are left dangling in the air, e.g. what is the state of the word that CREATE leaves and until which point it is left in a state that makes its behavior modifiable by DOES>: :NONAME DOES> DUP @ SWAP CELL+ DUP @ SWAP CELL+ DUP @ + + ; CREATE mything ( should be complete right now) 0 , ( still modifiable, I guess) HERE ( still modifiable, I guess) DUP ( still modifiable, I guess) >R ( still modifiable, I guess) R> ( still modifiable, I guess) , , ( still modifiable, I guess) : MORE ; ( OK, you had your chance) Now the only thing we know is that when you use it in a definition together with CREATE or a user defined word which uses CREATE you should be fine. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 06:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21222597.114.1322835803418.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbg11> |
| In reply to | #7680 |
On Friday, 2 December 2011 08:28:06 UTC, Hans Bezemer wrote: > So true. It is for that reason that I'd like to have seen a somewhat more > elaborate rationale for DOES>, just because there are some aspects that > are left dangling in the air, e.g. what is the state of the word that > CREATE leaves and until which point it is left in a state that makes its > behavior modifiable by DOES>: > > :NONAME DOES> DUP @ SWAP CELL+ DUP @ SWAP CELL+ DUP @ + + ; > > CREATE mything ( should be complete right now) > 0 , ( still modifiable, I guess) > HERE ( still modifiable, I guess) > DUP ( still modifiable, I guess) > >R ( still modifiable, I guess) > R> ( still modifiable, I guess) > , , ( still modifiable, I guess) Why not? And BTW, how at this point would DOES> know if that CREATE had been executed from the same definition or not? > : MORE ; ( OK, you had your chance) Of course. because MYTHING is no longer the most recent definition. A Forth might possibly have DOES> use a variable set by the most recent CREATEd word, in which case the behaviour of MYTHING would still be set, but the only reason I can think of to allow that would be to get a weird recursion: MORE calls MYTHING and the DOES> part of MYTHING (defined after MORE) calls MORE. That really makes my brain hurt! >;P My guess is that for almost any Standard-ish Forth ever written, loading the above code and then EXECUTEing the :NONAME will cause it to try to attach the behaviour to MORE. Whether that raises an error or not is outside the Standard. > > Now the only thing we know is that when you use it in a definition > together with CREATE or a user defined word which uses CREATE you > should be fine. > > Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web