Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8896 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-01-16 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-01-22 11:03 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 04:36 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 05:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 05:34 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 05:10 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 05:41 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 06:06 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 14:30 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 07:04 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 15:21 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 08:48 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-16 09:28 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 10:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Bruce.McFarling" <bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com> - 2012-01-16 13:07 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 13:59 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 06:49 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 15:28 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 12:02 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-18 14:10 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-18 12:55 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 17:36 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 03:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:21 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 14:48 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 09:13 -0800
How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 17:16 +0000
Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 09:45 -0800
Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 09:50 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 09:47 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 12:24 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-19 13:02 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:44 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 14:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-16 22:20 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-16 14:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 17:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 10:39 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-01-16 12:27 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 20:12 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-19 06:00 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 17:32 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 18:55 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 11:06 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 03:39 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 16:48 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:15 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-20 09:51 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-23 12:25 +0000
RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 09:25 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 09:56 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-23 12:10 -0600
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 11:13 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-23 13:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 13:39 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-23 14:47 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 17:00 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-23 17:21 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 17:40 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 15:07 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 16:57 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-02-07 20:43 +0100
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-07 14:47 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-02-07 13:14 -1000
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-08 18:00 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-08 19:30 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 15:17 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-08 18:07 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-08 19:20 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-09 01:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 10:34 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2012-01-23 22:15 +0400
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 10:43 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2012-01-24 10:09 +0400
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 22:19 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-24 10:11 +0000
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-24 06:53 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-24 10:42 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-24 11:56 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-23 13:04 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 13:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-25 07:16 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 22:13 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-30 16:35 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-30 10:25 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-30 10:43 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-30 12:01 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-30 12:48 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 11:26 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 07:50 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 16:00 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 08:31 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 10:05 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 10:18 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 08:42 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 10:48 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 17:03 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:00 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-01 16:08 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 12:06 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-02 12:40 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-02 08:41 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-02 08:34 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-02 15:55 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-02 11:20 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-03 15:12 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-03 10:33 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-03 16:48 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-02-03 08:07 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 09:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:05 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 10:33 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 16:50 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 11:07 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 09:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:09 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 09:29 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:17 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 11:01 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 04:11 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 06:27 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 11:32 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 10:32 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-01 11:03 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-02-01 20:34 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 12:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 11:09 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-03 12:53 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 19:04 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 04:03 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 12:15 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-05 14:28 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-05 17:00 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 04:23 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 11:37 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 11:58 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 12:26 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 04:27 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 15:06 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 16:30 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 13:19 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 14:55 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 19:13 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-05 05:35 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-07 11:55 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 11:29 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-07 14:53 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 15:18 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-05 05:51 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-24 09:21 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 05:35 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 16:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-16 10:32 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-17 07:35 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-17 10:08 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-18 00:42 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 13:53 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-18 07:24 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-18 21:27 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-20 00:01 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 16:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 02:19 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:46 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 07:56 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 08:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 12:28 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 08:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 11:23 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-19 03:10 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 03:08 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:50 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:16 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 07:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-20 13:10 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-19 17:50 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-19 13:48 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 17:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-19 18:14 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:48 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 12:22 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 15:56 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-20 05:52 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:52 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-21 15:45 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 13:58 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-21 21:15 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 18:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 03:29 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:11 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-20 18:43 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-01-21 08:45 +0200
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-21 12:37 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 17:22 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-22 18:31 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-22 11:03 -0800
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 17:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <94a63538-690f-4539-96fc-080f9c07e17c@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9054 |
On Jan 19, 5:48 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > On 1/19/12 12:50 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > ... > > > Keeping with the Forth > > "as generic as possible" spirit, I don't think dictionary specific words > > should be created, unless absolutely required. > > I don't recognize such a spirit. IMO the philosophy is to avoid > unnecessary generalization; solve only the problem at hand. > Unfortunately, that is a self-limiting philosophy... appropriate for tackling a specific requirement at hand, but not for evolving the language to be functional in a wider range of environments (application and development contexts). Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 18:14 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <QK2dnZped-G8d4XSnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #9059 |
On 1/19/12 3:37 PM, Krishna Myneni wrote: > On Jan 19, 5:48 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather"<erat...@forth.com> wrote: >> On 1/19/12 12:50 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> ... >> >>> Keeping with the Forth >>> "as generic as possible" spirit, I don't think dictionary specific words >>> should be created, unless absolutely required. >> >> I don't recognize such a spirit. IMO the philosophy is to avoid >> unnecessary generalization; solve only the problem at hand. >> > > Unfortunately, that is a self-limiting philosophy... appropriate for > tackling a specific requirement at hand, but not for evolving the > language to be functional in a wider range of environments > (application and development contexts). Well, it was Chuck's mantra, and has been influential to a generation of Forth programmers. It's fair to say that Chuck's ambition has never at any time been "to evolve the language to be functional in a wider range of environments." He (and his followers) have been content to have a simple and nimble language with which to tackle the problem at hand. Not surprisingly, as different problem domains have presented themselves over the years, the language *has*, in fact, acquired more capabilities in different areas, and long-time practitioners have developed personal libraries reflecting capabilities needed by the projects they've done. The Forth community has, of course, failed to promulgate a lot of those capabilities and personal libraries as much as perhaps we should, although FORTH, Inc, MPE, and probably other individuals and organizations that see a lot of different projects have ways of sharing within their communities (e.g. as libraries and options included with their products). But I would argue that a lot of Forth's efficiency and nimbleness is a result of our avoiding the temptation to try to add a lot of generalized features on spec or because other languages have them. 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 | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 06:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c7e5d713-f1e8-45a1-b494-df78fa600bb1@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9059 |
On Jan 19, 8:37 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Jan 19, 5:48 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: >> I don't recognize such a spirit. IMO the philosophy is to avoid >> unnecessary generalization; solve only the problem at hand. > Unfortunately, that is a self-limiting philosophy... appropriate for > tackling a specific requirement at hand, but not for evolving the > language to be functional in a wider range of environments > (application and development contexts). Except when providing a function that can be functional in a wider range of environments *is* the problem at hand. Then "solve the problem at hand" would suggest solving the problem of being functional in a wider range of environments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 10:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a8efbbf-ac8f-409b-8452-7db7e980a26c@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9075 |
On Jan 20, 8:48 am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Jan 19, 8:37 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 19, 5:48 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > >> I don't recognize such a spirit. IMO the philosophy is to avoid > >> unnecessary generalization; solve only the problem at hand. > > Unfortunately, that is a self-limiting philosophy... appropriate for > > tackling a specific requirement at hand, but not for evolving the > > language to be functional in a wider range of environments > > (application and development contexts). > > Except when providing a function that can be functional in a wider > range of environments *is* the problem at hand. Then "solve the > problem at hand" would suggest solving the problem of being functional > in a wider range of environments. Exception noted. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 12:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8b790a4c-756a-4bb9-bad6-b6fe06b1f6d5@z2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9095 |
On Jan 20, 1:13 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > Exception noted. That exception would seem to be the case at hand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-19 15:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dfa75e25-51ff-4d79-aef3-bd73cc0a330e@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9051 |
On Jan 19, 5:50 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > No, "it" wouldn't presume a doubly-linked list. The words would be > available for a doubly-linked list, e.g., for non-dictionary use too. > If the words were dictionary use only, then things change a bit, > which is why I didn't state for dictionary use. Let's assume they > are dictionary use only. Since the original question is traversing a wordlist ~ lets assume that they *are* for dictionary use, and would be for a linked list if the dictionary happened to be implemented that way. > If there was a singly-linked dictionary list, then the words for the > incorrect direction could be defined to do nothing. If there are no > links at all in the dictionary, i.e., hash, then the traversal words > wouldn't need to do anything would they? I.e., there is no > traversing since there is no need to traverse. The entire point of > traversing is to locate the node. No, the point of traversing is to traverse through the wordlist. If the wordlist is not organized as nodes in a linked list, then a linked- list traverse would fail to traverse *the wordlist*. > If the hash or some other function does it for you and they are > dictionary use only, why define them to do something? The code used > to confirm the correct node via traversal would likely work > differently on a hash system and call the hash lookup and verify the > correct node. What do you mean "find *the* correct node"? What if you wanted to do something with *every* entry in the wordlist (as with WORDS)? What if you wanted to do something with *a set of* words in the wordlist (eg, "all words beginning with the character .")? > I.e., the Forth traversal code probably would have zero code changes > for the node check on a hash system, with only the traversal words > being defined to do nothing. If the traversal words are defined to do nothing, then they will not be traversal words, because they will not traverse the wordlist. > You'd only need to work through a few sets of traversal word > definitions and routines to confirm the words with host specific > definitions work for multiple implementations. The standard would > only need to support the top two or three or four methods of > dictionary implementations. That would be inappropriate for standardization at the language level. It would be workable for a library standard that was was willing to confine itself to implementations that followed those particular methods of implementation. > Keeping with the Forth "as generic as possible" spirit, I don't think > dictionary specific words should be created, unless absolutely > required. I try to parse this sentence, but it does not seem to make sense to me. It seems to argue that the reason we shouldn't have as generic wordlist traversal words as possible is because of the spirit of keeping things as generic as possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 05:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jfbh49$61k$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9055 |
"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message news:dfa75e25-51ff-4d79-aef3-bd73cc0a330e@f1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... ... > What if you wanted to do something with *every* entry in > the wordlist (as with WORDS)? How do hash based dictionaries do that now? Supposedly, from what a couple people have just now stated, hash dictionaries are not linked ... If their dictionaries aren't linked somehow, they aren't traversable are they? If they aren't linked, WORDS wouldn't work. If WORDS does work, then they are linked somehow, and therefore basic traversal words should work. Yes? I.e., the linking may not be a pointer for a hash based system, but there is some method to progress to the next dictionary entry. Somesuch behavior is required to implements WORDS. Most likely, this behavior is "hidden" on hash based systems and needs to be exposed via acceptable Forth words. > What if you wanted to do something with *a set of* words > in the wordlist (eg, "all words beginning with the character .")? I don't see any issue here. Matching of the words is a separate operation whether exact or with wildcards. I'd say it's *much* more difficult on a hash based dictionary. I.e., no wildcard use possible with the hash ... That could imply hash based dictionaries have a secondary matching method, i.e., string compare. Of course, they do have a string compare to eliminate hash collisions. So, if WORDS works for hash based dictionary implying a linked-list and hash based dictionaries have a string compare operation, then we are back to being able to traverse dictionaries via the old linked-list method for all systems. Aren't we? > > You'd only need to work through a few sets of traversal word > > definitions and routines to confirm the words with host specific > > definitions work for multiple implementations. The standard would > > only need to support the top two or three or four methods of > > dictionary implementations. > > That would be inappropriate for standardization at the language level. Then, there is no point in entertaining the OP's original question, is there? That's ignoring the fact that that reasoning would nullify the entire purpose of and reason for the fig-Forth, F-79, F-83, and ANS Forth specifications ... Everything they standardized would be inappropriate by your reasoning. > > Keeping with the Forth "as generic as possible" spirit, I don't think > > dictionary specific words should be created, unless absolutely > > required. > > I try to parse this sentence, but it does not seem to make sense to > me. It seems to argue that the reason we shouldn't have as generic > wordlist traversal words as possible is because of the spirit of > keeping things as generic as possible. I said that IMO Forth words for traversing linked-lists are appropriate, but Forth words only for traversing dictionary entries aren't, because their specificity violates the Forth ideology AIUI. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 06:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6966483a-9850-4392-896f-736918834639@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9065 |
On Jan 20, 5:52 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > How do hash based dictionaries do that now? Supposedly, from what a > couple people have just now stated, hash dictionaries are not linked > ... If their dictionaries aren't linked somehow, they aren't > traversable are they? Of course they are. > If they aren't linked, WORDS wouldn't work. If WORDS does work, then > they are linked somehow, and therefore basic traversal words should > work. Yes? Of course not. If you know where the set of hash buckets is located, you do not need to link the hash buckets together, you can just look in each hash bucket, one after the other. The rest snipped unread as if you think its impossible to traverse a set of hash buckets, it doesn't seem like you are in a position to suggest a set of behaviors that would work for a hashed dictionary except by accident.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-21 15:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jff88n$j4q$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9076 |
"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message news:6966483a-9850-4392-896f-736918834639@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 20, 5:52 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > wrote: ... > If you know where the set of hash buckets is located, > you do not need to link the hash buckets together, you > can just look in each hash bucket, one after the other. How do you get from one hash bucket to another? I.e., represented by your phrase "just look in each hash bucket, one after the other". The functionality to move from bucket to bucket represents a link, which is what I said previously ... It could be simply summing an address of a fixed bucket size from the starting address of the buckets. However, that functionality - the functionality to move to the next bucket - is present and codified. If you had understood what I wrote, you wouldn't have just reiterated that. > The rest snipped unread as if you think its impossible to > traverse a set of hash buckets, [...] I said no such thing. You simply failed to comprehend what I wrote. > [...] it doesn't seem like you are in a position to suggest a set of behaviors that would work for a hashed dictionary except by accident. Whatever your apparent emotional problems are with what I suggested, I can't fix that. Only you can. But, failed to stated what you thought was so wrong. You could've said, "I don't like this wordset" because 1) they don't word well with hash functions 2) they don't fit the way I've done things 3) they don't work well with Forth in general 4) etc. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-21 13:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d937660-dc87-4d9b-b7db-994587c82bb0@l19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9117 |
On Jan 21, 3:45 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "BruceMcF" <agil...@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:6966483a-9850-4392-896f-736918834639@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...> On Jan 20, 5:52 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > > wrote: > ... > > If you know where the set of hash buckets is located, > > you do not need to link the hash buckets together, you > > can just look in each hash bucket, one after the other. > How do you get from one hash bucket to another? I.e., represented by > your phrase "just look in each hash bucket, one after the other". Instead of *fetching* the next address from a *link* field in the item, you may, for example, increment the data bucket address and compare the result to the end of the vector of hash buckets. > The functionality to move from bucket to bucket represents a link, > which is what I said previously ... If you are redefining words from their normal meaning to some idiosyncratic meaning, then say so up front ... the "functionality to move from bucket to bucket" does not "represent a link". It performs part of the same *function* as a link (though often only part, since there may be a linked list of all hash collisions in a given hash bucket) ... but it does not do so by *using a link address*. It does so by some other means. The point of the traverse-wordlist operations (plural, since as we've seen there are a family of them both already implementation and conceivable) is that the mechanics of traversing the wordlist does not have to be first mapped to match the mechanics of traversing a linked list. Instead, the direct mechanics of traversing the wordlist however it is implemented is used. > It could be simply summing an address of a fixed bucket size from the > starting address of the buckets. But then its no longer a link, its a *different* way to step through ~ a way to step through that depends on a different set of information than a *linked* list. For example, you can use a do-loop to step through a vector of hash buckets, which is an option that hiding the actual hash buckets behind an abstraction that pretends that its a linked list will hide. > However, that functionality - the functionality to move to the next > bucket - is present and codified. Yes, and the functionality to move to the next bucket is provided by something *other than* a link which you are mapping to a set of linked list operations. > If you had understood what I wrote, you wouldn't have just > reiterated that. > > The rest snipped unread as if you think its impossible to > > traverse a set of hash buckets, [...] > I said no such thing. You simply failed to comprehend what I wrote. You said if there is no link, there should be a no-op. Now you clarify that when you said if there is no link, you did not mean what the words would seem to say, that when there is no *actual* link, but rather by link you meant something more general ~ neither a link nor anything else which can be used to traverse the information. The link for the hash bucket is a double ~ the index into the hash bucket vector and the address for the item>next-item operation in the hash collision change. Emulating that with a set of operators for a linked list requires hiding state ~ likely the hash bucket vector index ~ and that means that operations which *are* valid for a real linked list will not be valid for the emulated linked list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-21 21:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jffrk1$r66$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #9120 |
"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1d937660-dc87-4d9b-b7db-994587c82bb0@l19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 21, 3:45 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > wrote: > > "BruceMcF" <agil...@netscape.net> wrote in message ... > > I said no such thing. You simply failed to comprehend what I wrote. > > You said if there is no link, there should be a no-op. Now you clarify > that when you said if there is no link, you did not mean what the > words would seem to say, that when there is no *actual* link, but > rather by link you meant something more general ~ neither a link nor > anything else which can be used to traverse the information. You're confused, or willfully ignoring parts of the conversation. > The link for the hash bucket is a double ~ the index into the hash > bucket vector and the address for the item>next-item operation in the > hash collision change. Emulating that with a set of operators for a > linked list requires hiding state ~ likely the hash bucket vector > index ~ and that means that operations which *are* valid for a real > linked list will not be valid for the emulated linked list. So, now you are saying such a system is also incapable of implementing WORDS correctly ... The required functionality needed to implement WORDS and dictionary traversal are the same. How do you not recognize that? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-21 18:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac675fff-681d-41c7-a083-be1a76bc0a54@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9125 |
On Jan 21, 9:15 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "BruceMcF" <agil...@netscape.net> wrote in message > > news:1d937660-dc87-4d9b-b7db-994587c82bb0@l19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...> On Jan 21, 3:45 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > > wrote: > > > "BruceMcF" <agil...@netscape.net> wrote in message > > ... > > > > I said no such thing. You simply failed to comprehend what I wrote. > > > You said if there is no link, there should be a no-op. Now you clarify > > that when you said if there is no link, you did not mean what the > > words would seem to say, that when there is no *actual* link, but > > rather by link you meant something more general ~ neither a link nor > > anything else which can be used to traverse the information. > > You're confused, or willfully ignoring parts of the conversation. > > > The link for the hash bucket is a double ~ the index into the hash > > bucket vector and the address for the item>next-item operation in the > > hash collision change. Emulating that with a set of operators for a > > linked list requires hiding state ~ likely the hash bucket vector > > index ~ and that means that operations which *are* valid for a real > > linked list will not be valid for the emulated linked list. > > So, now you are saying such a system is also incapable of implementing WORDS correctly ... No, obviously not. As with all the more general traverse words the execute an xt on each entry and take a flag to continue, WORDS does not require the full range of capabilities provided by a linked list link address, and so an ability to perform WORDS does not imply an ability to provide the full range of capabilies that must be supported to effectively emulate general linked list functionality. There is no need to be able to *step through* a wordlist item by item using a single, atomic link in order to be able to traverse a wordlist. Each and every word described already that applies an xt to each item in a wordlist avoids the user having to program the step by step process, and so adapt to a variety of distinct traversal mechanisms, not just a linked list mechanism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 03:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <14c27556-3f44-42f6-a95c-9c50abc7a0c5@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9051 |
On Jan 19, 10:50 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message > > news:5ecf1895-1629-44df-bb12-dd1ac58f2cf3@u2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...> On Jan 19, 8:10 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@noavailemail.cmm> > > wrote: > > ... > > > > If I were deciding on the basic functionality I needed for traversing > > > a linked-list in Forth, I'd at least want the following: > > > While they're suitable for traversing a linked list, many > > dictionaries/wordlists/vocabularies are not based on [linked lists], > > and it would presume a doubly linked list to support such a traversal > > scheme. For instance, some are hash only, others hash & single linked > > lists. > > No, "it" wouldn't presume a doubly-linked list. The words would be > available for a doubly-linked list, e.g., for non-dictionary use too. If > the words were dictionary use only, then things change a bit, which is why I > didn't state for dictionary use. Let's assume they are dictionary use only. > If there was a singly-linked dictionary list, then the words for the > incorrect direction could be defined to do nothing. If there are no links > at all in the dictionary, i.e., hash, then the traversal words wouldn't need > to do anything would they? I.e., there is no traversing since there is no > need to traverse. The entire point of traversing is to locate the node. If > the hash or some other function does it for you and they are dictionary use > only, why define them to do something? The code used to confirm the correct > node via traversal would likely work differently on a hash system and call > the hash lookup and verify the correct node. I.e., the Forth traversal code > probably would have zero code changes for the node check on a hash system, > with only the traversal words being defined to do nothing. You'd only need > to work through a few sets of traversal word definitions and routines to > confirm the words with host specific definitions work for multiple > implementations. The standard would only need to support the top two or > three or four methods of dictionary implementations. Keeping with the Forth > "as generic as possible" spirit, I don't think dictionary specific words > should be created, unless absolutely required. > > Rod Pemberton I can't see this working in practice, since the generic "traversal" words you propose are like methods of multiple classes operating against objects. While that's possible, it's certainly not desirable since it's not simple, and it adds a big layer of cruft over what is a very simple proposal for a single word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f19a136.91474821@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #8896 |
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:36:26 -0800 (PST), Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote: >Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm >wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a >wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? VFX provides a number of words for this sort of stuff. They are used 15 times in the code tree, and always in conjunction with other implementation-specific words such as displaying a word name or a cross-reference structure. In order to standardise dictionary traversal, you will have to standardise a slew of other "stuff", nearly all of which is system-specific "stuff" that probably should not be standardised. I don't think that it is worth the effort. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 10:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8a2f8bb2-5094-4de4-9e82-76ddfe487b79@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9091 |
On Jan 20, 11:21 am, stephen...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:36:26 -0800 (PST), Krishna Myneni > > <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > >Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > >wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > >wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? > > VFX provides a number of words for this sort of stuff. They are used > 15 times in the code tree, and always in conjunction with other > implementation-specific words such as displaying a word name or > a cross-reference structure. > > In order to standardise dictionary traversal, you will have > to standardise a slew of other "stuff", nearly all of which > is system-specific "stuff" that probably should not be standardised. > > I don't think that it is worth the effort. > > Stephen > For the use which I envisioned when I posted the question, which was to provide a couple of tools to find instances of name reuse in the search order, I only require two words such as WORDLIST-TRAVERSE (similar to Alex McDonald's VOC-ITERATE), and another such as >NAME to get the current word name in the traversal. With just these two words alone, the Forth standard word, WORDS, can also be written in Forth. An additional word to obtain information such as xt(s) may permit a word to be written in Forth to find aliases/synonyms. Allowing remap of xt(s) of a word may permit more serious applications such as Forth debuggers to be written in Forth. But, for now, I'd settle for the ability to traverse the wordlist and obtain the word name at each node of the traversal. I haven't seen anything in this thread to suggest that there would be any great difficulty to providing such words within any existing Forth system. Regards, Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f19b46d.96393267@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #9094 |
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:11:45 -0800 (PST), Krishna Myneni
<krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:
>But, for now, I'd settle for the ability to traverse the wordlist and
>obtain the word name at each node of the traversal. I haven't seen
>anything in this thread to suggest that there would be any great
>difficulty to providing such words within any existing Forth system.
Before you can standardise, you need common practice. A good way
to start is to keep a lot of systems on your working PC and to scan
the sources regularly.
The VFX traversal words are:
: WalkWordList \ xt wid --
\ Walk through a wordlist calling the definition XT for each word.
\ The definitions are walked in reverse chronological order.
\ The definition at XT will be passed the THREAD# and NFA.
\ The XT definition has the stack form:
\ *E : MyDef \ thread# nfa -- flag ; Return TRUE to continue
: WalkAllWordLists \ xt-to-call --
\ Call the given XT for each *\fo{WORDLIST}. The callback
\ is given the WID and a flag and will return TRUE to continue
\ the walk or false to abandon it. The FLAG supplied will be
\ TRUE if the WID represents a *\fo{VOCABULARY} and FALSE if
\ the WID represents a child of *\fo{WORDLIST}.
\ : MyDef \ wid flag -- t/f ; return TRUE to continue
: WalkAllWords \ xt --
\ Walk through all wordlists calling the given XT for each word.
\ The definitions are walked in reverse chronological order of
wordlists
\ and then by reverse chronological order within each wordlist.
\ When run, the XT will be passed the THREAD# and NFA.
\ ** The XT definition has the stack form:
\ : MyDef \ thread# nfa -- flag ; return TRUE to continue
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-21 08:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <08589514028435@frunobulax.edu> |
| In reply to | #9097 |
stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist?
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:11:45 -0800 (PST), Krishna Myneni
> <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote:
> >But, for now, I'd settle for the ability to traverse the wordlist and
> >obtain the word name at each node of the traversal. I haven't seen
> >anything in this thread to suggest that there would be any great
> >difficulty to providing such words within any existing Forth system.
I have no time for a more thoughtful response, so here's just a
(limited) dump of the facilities exposed by iForth.
FORTH> help doWORDS
doWORDS IFORTH
( xt -- count-of-matched-entries )
The wordlist traversing factor of WORDS WORDS: and WORDS?
Supply the xt of a word that can filter ( addr -- bool ) where
addr is the address of a counted string (name of the next word
in the list). For example, to realize a clone of WORDS that only
prints short words you can do:
: SWORDS-XT ( addr -- bool ) C@ 3 < ; ' SWORDS-XT doWORDS DROP .
ok
FORTH> words: HEAD
>HEAD HEAD>exec HEAD>comp HEAD'
HEAD>FLAGS HEAD>LOCATE HEAD>FORGET HEAD>HASH
HEAD> LINK>HEAD HEAD>LINK HEAD>NAME
ok
Some examples:
FORTH> help HEAD>NAME
HEAD>NAME "head-to-name" IFORTH
( dea -- nfa )
nfa is the name field address of the dictionary entry identified by dea.
It contains a character string with the name of the dictionary entry.
FORTH> help >HEAD
>HEAD "to-head" IFORTH
( xt -- dea | 0 )
dea is the address of the dictionary entry whose execution token is xt .
If the conversion was not possible a 0 is returned.
FORTH> help HEAD>FLAGS
HEAD>FLAGS IFORTH
( dea -- ffa )
ffa is the flag field address of the dictionary entry identified by dea.
It is considered as an array of flags denoting properties of the
dictionary entry. It can be manipulated using bit-masks.
For example: the phrase flags =ANSI AND =ANSI = leaves true if flags
are the flags from an ANS standard word.
See also: =ANSI =COMP =IMMEDIATE =MACRO =PRIVATE =VISIBLE
FORTH> help .FLAGS
.FLAGS "dot-flags" IFORTH
( flags -- )
Display a summary of what flags means. Example:
FORTH> HEAD' IF HEAD>FLAGS @ CR .FLAGS
IMMEDIATE, COMPILE-ONLY, ANSI ok
See also: HEAD>FLAGS
-marcel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-21 12:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ly5f33.4sy@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #9097 |
In article <4f19b46d.96393267@192.168.0.50>, Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeforth.com> wrote: >On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:11:45 -0800 (PST), Krishna Myneni ><krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote: > >>But, for now, I'd settle for the ability to traverse the wordlist and >>obtain the word name at each node of the traversal. I haven't seen >>anything in this thread to suggest that there would be any great >>difficulty to providing such words within any existing Forth system. > >Before you can standardise, you need common practice. A good way >to start is to keep a lot of systems on your working PC and to scan >the sources regularly. > >The VFX traversal words are: > >: WalkWordList \ xt wid -- >\ Walk through a wordlist calling the definition XT for each word. >\ The definitions are walked in reverse chronological order. >\ The definition at XT will be passed the THREAD# and NFA. >\ The XT definition has the stack form: >\ *E : MyDef \ thread# nfa -- flag ; Return TRUE to continue This exact same word is present in ciforth called FOR-WORDS <SNIP> > >Stephen 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 | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-21 17:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d53658b-b57a-4d6a-9ba5-c84e3bab5fb5@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9097 |
On Jan 20, 1:43 pm, stephen...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote: > Before you can standardise, you need common practice. A good way > to start is to keep a lot of systems on your working PC and to scan > the sources regularly. > The VFX traversal words are: > : WalkWordList \ xt wid -- > \ Walk through a wordlist calling the definition XT for each word. > \ The definitions are walked in reverse chronological order. > \ The definition at XT will be passed the THREAD# and NFA. > \ The XT definition has the stack form: > \ *E : MyDef \ thread# nfa -- flag ; Return TRUE to continue This seems to be the function under discussion ... I am assuming that the nfa could be generalized to an nt as the cfa has been generalized to an xt ~ but what is "thread#" in the argument to the xt?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-22 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f1c5451.268400765@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #9123 |
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:22:04 -0800 (PST), BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote: >> : WalkWordList =A0\ xt wid -- >> \ Walk through a wordlist calling the definition XT for each word. >> \ The definitions are walked in reverse chronological order. >> \ The definition at XT will be passed the THREAD# and NFA. >> \ The XT definition has the stack form: >> \ *E : MyDef =A0 =A0\ thread# nfa -- flag ; Return TRUE to continue > >This seems to be the function under discussion ... I am assuming that >the nfa could be generalized to an nt as the cfa has been generalized >to an xt ~ but what is "thread#" in the argument to the xt? Thread# (0..n-1) identifies which of n threads the name is in. NFA could be an xt, but in the majority of cases the NFA is of more use. Given the number of ways of hashing/threading a dictionary and the number of ways of building a "name field", there is a large number of ways to specify a word such as this. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web