Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10270 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-21 10:37 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:34 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-26 20:40 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 15:00 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-27 02:20 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 08:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:08 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 09:35 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:47 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 12:33 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:24 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:07 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-27 00:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-21 15:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 16:36 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:47 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-23 07:48 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-23 17:28 +0000
Re: Which standard? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-03-23 20:51 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-24 00:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 08:40 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 04:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 19:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:03 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 19:20 +0100
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 17:54 -0400
Re: Which standard? "The Other Rod Pemberton" <dontaskdonttell@pemberton.it> - 2012-03-23 18:12 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 20:39 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:05 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 09:15 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 22:52 -1000
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 10:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-24 11:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 21:46 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-27 02:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 01:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 14:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-23 12:48 +0100
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 13:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-21 17:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 09:27 +0100
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-22 12:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 19:19 -0400
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-22 08:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:25 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:10 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-24 11:19 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 07:55 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:12 +0000
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 21:03 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 22:28 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 16:36 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 05:15 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 12:16 +0000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 01:26 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 15:37 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-25 22:24 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-26 10:49 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 20:00 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:21 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 18:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:21 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 01:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:06 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 10:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:31 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:25 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 01:43 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 15:56 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-25 09:18 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 06:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:04 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 04:39 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 22:29 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-26 18:09 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 11:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-26 20:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 11:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-29 00:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-03-30 16:13 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-30 13:01 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 09:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-31 08:18 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:43 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 10:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 08:22 -1000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 14:03 -0500
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-10 12:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 09:26 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-11 06:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-11 12:42 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 09:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 11:28 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Which standard? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-04-27 23:34 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-28 04:13 -0500
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 12:53 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 01:06 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 11:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 04:35 -0500
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 12:01 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 05:17 -0500
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:01 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 20:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:18 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:36 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:48 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 13:38 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 14:33 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 07:33 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 19:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-29 10:36 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-30 16:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-05-01 07:38 +0100
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-01 09:36 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-02 10:30 +0000
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 08:33 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:07 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 11:50 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-30 15:27 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 13:39 -1000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-05-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-05-03 09:16 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-04 12:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-05-03 14:27 -0500
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-05-04 01:56 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-05-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:18 -0400
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:35 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 16:43 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 08:09 -0400
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 10:27 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 06:19 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 07:49 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-10 12:38 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 23:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-27 12:04 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 16:10 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-03 09:27 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:44 +0000
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-05-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 05:47 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-24 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 05:44 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:52 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 12:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 06:24 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 12:20 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 03:25 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 04:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-22 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 22:14 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 23:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:41 -0700
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-27 08:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-28 01:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-31 13:46 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 04:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_6CdnWdTP4v1lgDSnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11733 |
Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.remove.com> wrote: > In comp.lang.forth, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> See, this is why it can never be resolved, because the whole issue >> is how people *think* about this operator: a precursor to IF, UNTIL >> and WHILE, or a logical operation. Both viewpoints are equally >> valid in a technical sense, both senses have a lot of history, and >> it's hard to take a poll of the entire Forth community. > > Then maybe better would be to leave it in present state - with 0= and INVERT > - than to introduce confusion? I think we're coming to that conclusion. I was hoping that after many years it would be possible to re-introduce NOT to the standard language, but that appears not to be possible. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 02:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xhaw2n9p6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #11735 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > I think we're coming to that conclusion. I was hoping that after many > years it would be possible to re-introduce NOT to the standard > language, but that appears not to be possible. How about calling the two operations BOOL-NOT and COMPLEMENT. They are not so concise as 0= but I think their meaning is clear. -IF (from Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 12:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slrnjpqbf3.475.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| In reply to | #11736 |
In comp.lang.forth, Paul Rubin wrote: > How about calling the two operations BOOL-NOT and COMPLEMENT. They are > not so concise as 0= but I think their meaning is clear. But does it really make sense to introduce "aliases" for "old" words? > -IF (from Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. This looks better. -- Forth is a preserver of health (Hippocrates)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 05:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i_KdndZEQYnKiADSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11736 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> I think we're coming to that conclusion. I was hoping that after many >> years it would be possible to re-introduce NOT to the standard >> language, but that appears not to be possible. > > How about calling the two operations BOOL-NOT and COMPLEMENT. They are > not so concise as 0= but I think their meaning is clear. The meanings of 0= and INVERT are already clear. > -IF (from Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. It is. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 14:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1kjbg7w.1ii32ps11vp6yN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #11736 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > > I think we're coming to that conclusion. I was hoping that after many > > years it would be possible to re-introduce NOT to the standard > > language, but that appears not to be possible. > > How about calling the two operations BOOL-NOT and COMPLEMENT. They are > not so concise as 0= but I think their meaning is clear. Hmm - howbout NON and COM? (OTOH, i don't really have a problem with 0= and INVERT) > -IF (from > Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. AFAIK -IF is equivalent to DUP 0< IF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 08:01 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <_JKdnRX8NJl_HADSnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11742 |
On 4/29/12 2:11 AM, Alex Wegel wrote: > Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: ... >> -IF (from >> Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. > > AFAIK -IF is equivalent to DUP 0< IF No. This word from colorForth has been around Chuck's systems for a long time. It is pronounced "not-if" and the symbol that looks like a minus to you is the closest 7-bit ASCII can get to a "not" symbol. -IF has historically been DUP 0= IF ever since the early 70's. 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 | awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 20:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1kjbxez.bkia2ih0lvixN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #11749 |
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 4/29/12 2:11 AM, Alex Wegel wrote: > > Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > ... > >> -IF (from > >> Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. > > > > AFAIK -IF is equivalent to DUP 0< IF > > No. This word from colorForth has been around Chuck's systems for a long > time. It is pronounced "not-if" and the symbol that looks like a minus > to you is the closest 7-bit ASCII can get to a "not" symbol. -IF has > historically been DUP 0= IF ever since the early 70's. So there's some confusion with -IF too - to quote from C.Moores website (pentium colorforth): -if Jump to 'then' if not negative ..or from ColorForth2.0a.pdf: 5.1.13 -if (SF - SF) Macro Jumps if previous statement sets sign flag to 0. Sign flag is not reset or consumed. Cheers, Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xlile5rlr.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #11749 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > -IF has historically been DUP 0= IF ever since the early 70's. I see. It does sound a little weird that IF pops the stack but -IF does not. But I guess in the nonzero case you probably want to do something with the value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 08:36 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ANGdnWErTYOuFwDSnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11752 |
On 4/29/12 8:18 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather"<erather@forth.com> writes: >> -IF has historically been DUP 0= IF ever since the early 70's. > > I see. It does sound a little weird that IF pops the stack but -IF does > not. But I guess in the nonzero case you probably want to do something > with the value. Chuck's IF instructions (including plain IF, for the past some years) no longer discard the stack item. I'm not sure how that works out in practice; maybe saves more DUPs than it costs DROPs, maybe not. It's part of his current philosophy of not bothering to maintain a "clean" stack because his stacks are circular. It's certainly contrary to common practice and all standards to date. Chuck can do that because he doesn't care about portability or standards, but if 200x were to contemplate this there would be terrible problems with the name, and without circular stacks would be problematic. 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 | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xbomae587.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #11753 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > Chuck's IF instructions (including plain IF, for the past some years) > no longer discard the stack item. Wow, I didn't realize that at all, despite spending hours looking for ways to bum instructions from GA144 code (that I"ve obviously never tried to run). > I'm not sure how that works out in practice; maybe saves more DUPs > than it costs DROPs, maybe not. It's part of his current philosophy of > not bothering to maintain a "clean" stack because his stacks are circular. I thought based on the recommendations of "Thinking Forth" that the practice of consuming stack items was to help keep bigger programs uniform for maintainability, even if it cost a few instructions. On Chuck's current cpu's, every instruction slot is valuable, and at the same time the programs are necessarily small. So maybe the tradeoff favors giving up uniformity to save a slot here or there. > Chuck can do that because he doesn't care about portability or > standards, but if 200x were to contemplate this there would be > terrible problems with the name, and without circular stacks would be > problematic. It's kind of droll that the GA144 uses both colorforth and eforth (in its VM), if those have differing treatments of IF. It also uses Polyforth, whichever way that goes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m39m4b.bbw@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #11755 |
In article <7xbomae587.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> Chuck's IF instructions (including plain IF, for the past some years) >> no longer discard the stack item. > >Wow, I didn't realize that at all, despite spending hours looking for >ways to bum instructions from GA144 code (that I"ve obviously never >tried to run). > >> I'm not sure how that works out in practice; maybe saves more DUPs >> than it costs DROPs, maybe not. It's part of his current philosophy of >> not bothering to maintain a "clean" stack because his stacks are circular. > >I thought based on the recommendations of "Thinking Forth" that the >practice of consuming stack items was to help keep bigger programs >uniform for maintainability, even if it cost a few instructions. On >Chuck's current cpu's, every instruction slot is valuable, and at the >same time the programs are necessarily small. So maybe the tradeoff >favors giving up uniformity to save a slot here or there. I found the colorforth instruction set much more comprehensible if I considered it as assembler instructions. That aspect is one of them. YMMV. >> Chuck can do that because he doesn't care about portability or >> standards, but if 200x were to contemplate this there would be >> terrible problems with the name, and without circular stacks would be >> problematic. > >It's kind of droll that the GA144 uses both colorforth and eforth (in >its VM), if those have differing treatments of IF. It also uses >Polyforth, whichever way that goes. You can always tell because eforth is colorless. I don't confuse a colored and a colorless IF. 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 | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 13:38 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <1emdnUDUZrR4TQDSnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11755 |
On 4/29/12 8:57 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather"<erather@forth.com> writes: >> Chuck's IF instructions (including plain IF, for the past some years) >> no longer discard the stack item. > > Wow, I didn't realize that at all, despite spending hours looking for > ways to bum instructions from GA144 code (that I"ve obviously never > tried to run). > >> I'm not sure how that works out in practice; maybe saves more DUPs >> than it costs DROPs, maybe not. It's part of his current philosophy of >> not bothering to maintain a "clean" stack because his stacks are circular. > > I thought based on the recommendations of "Thinking Forth" that the > practice of consuming stack items was to help keep bigger programs > uniform for maintainability, even if it cost a few instructions. On > Chuck's current cpu's, every instruction slot is valuable, and at the > same time the programs are necessarily small. So maybe the tradeoff > favors giving up uniformity to save a slot here or there. In general Forth programming, following the rule of every word "destroying its arguments and leaving only explicit results" is important for keeping a clean stack and ensuring that words don't inadvertently conceal arguments from previous words not affected by this one, not to mention the fact that unconstrained stack growth leads to problems! Chuck is more concerned with efficient chip design and throughput than programming aesthetics. The stack on his chips is circular, typically with 8 elements, so old stuff gets overwritten. >> Chuck can do that because he doesn't care about portability or >> standards, but if 200x were to contemplate this there would be >> terrible problems with the name, and without circular stacks would be >> problematic. > > It's kind of droll that the GA144 uses both colorforth and eforth (in > its VM), if those have differing treatments of IF. It also uses > Polyforth, whichever way that goes. colorForth for the GA144 is basically its assembly language, plus a few macros. I don't know what eForth and polyForth compile (not familiar with their GA144 implementations), but both have a standard IF normally. 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 | awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 14:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1kjd9kq.43dosgx01msjN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #11749 |
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 4/29/12 2:11 AM, Alex Wegel wrote: > > Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > ... > >> -IF (from > >> Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. > > > > AFAIK -IF is equivalent to DUP 0< IF > > No. This word from colorForth has been around Chuck's systems for a long > time. It is pronounced "not-if" and the symbol that looks like a minus > to you is the closest 7-bit ASCII can get to a "not" symbol. Are you really* sure about that? All i find online now is C.M.'s definition for Colorforth (where minus means minus, not not, as i stated). There are other possibilities anyway: 0IF, 0=IF, !IF, ~IF, or as i used to prefer: UNLESS. > -IF has > historically been DUP 0= IF ever since the early 70's. Are you sure - especially about the DUP? If it was a synonym for 0= IF, or even for DUP 0= IF, then this notion seems to have gone with the 70's. (So you might be right about it being historical, though.) Cheers, Alex W.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 07:33 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <j-OdnSUbAYB-UQPSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11772 |
On 4/30/12 2:33 AM, Alex Wegel wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather<erather@forth.com> wrote: > >> On 4/29/12 2:11 AM, Alex Wegel wrote: >>> Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> ... >>>> -IF (from >>>> Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. >>> >>> AFAIK -IF is equivalent to DUP 0< IF >> >> No. This word from colorForth has been around Chuck's systems for a long >> time. It is pronounced "not-if" and the symbol that looks like a minus >> to you is the closest 7-bit ASCII can get to a "not" symbol. > > Are you really* sure about that? > All i find online now is C.M.'s definition for Colorforth (where minus > means minus, not not, as i stated). By itself, it's 'minus'. As a prefix, it's often 'not'. > There are other possibilities anyway: 0IF, 0=IF, !IF, ~IF, or as i used > to prefer: UNLESS. > >> -IF has >> historically been DUP 0= IF ever since the early 70's. > > Are you sure - especially about the DUP? > > If it was a synonym for 0= IF, or even for DUP 0= IF, then this notion > seems to have gone with the 70's. (So you might be right about it being > historical, though.) Well, I'm sure usage differs around this, as it's never been standardized in any sense. That's what I remember. 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 | awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 19:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1kjdqhl.3ml5fq1k4kh3vN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #11790 |
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 4/30/12 2:33 AM, Alex Wegel wrote: > > Elizabeth D. Rather<erather@forth.com> wrote: > > > >> On 4/29/12 2:11 AM, Alex Wegel wrote: > >>> Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> ... > >>>> -IF (from > >>>> Colorforth, equivalent to 0= IF) is also nice. > >>> > >>> AFAIK -IF is equivalent to DUP 0< IF > >> > >> No. This word from colorForth has been around Chuck's systems for a long > >> time. It is pronounced "not-if" and the symbol that looks like a minus > >> to you is the closest 7-bit ASCII can get to a "not" symbol. > > > > Are you really* sure about that? > > All i find online now is C.M.'s definition for Colorforth (where minus > > means minus, not not, as i stated). > > By itself, it's 'minus'. As a prefix, it's often 'not'. Sure, but the talk was specifically about the "-IF from Colorforth", where the "-" stands for "negative". Never mind. Cheers, Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 10:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f9d18f2.313007082@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #11735 |
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:35:36 -0500, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >I think we're coming to that conclusion. I was hoping that after many >years it would be possible to re-introduce NOT to the standard >language, but that appears not to be possible. The problem is that nobody (including MPE) removed their version of NOT from their implementations - it was perfectly legal to leave it in. I have long believed that marking words as obsolete is not enough. 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 11:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YvWdnd1BNs-a8gDSnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11739 |
Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 04:35:36 -0500, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >>I think we're coming to that conclusion. I was hoping that after many >>years it would be possible to re-introduce NOT to the standard >>language, but that appears not to be possible. > > The problem is that nobody (including MPE) removed their version > of NOT from their implementations - it was perfectly legal to > leave it in. > > I have long believed that marking words as obsolete is not enough. I'm sure you're right: FORGET proved that. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Apr30.155927@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #11739 |
stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>The problem is that nobody (including MPE) removed their version
>of NOT from their implementations - it was perfectly legal to
>leave it in.
Gforth never contained NOT, but then we only started after it was
clear that NOT was not in ANS Forth.
>I have long believed that marking words as obsolete is not enough.
NOT was not made obsolete. It is not in Forth-94 at all.
So not standardizing a word is obviously not a way to reserve the name
for future use.
One approach would have been to mark NOT as reserved word name, so
that systems providing NOT would be non-standard. That might have
cooled the usage down enough to allow re-standardization now, but OTOH
there would then be no common practice.
And looking at the discussion, the problem is that there is no
consensus what NOT should mean, so existing implementations do not
come into play anyway (we already disagree before we come to that).
IMO the current approach works quite well: 0= is very explicit about
its meaning, and INVERT, too (to a lesser degree, though). Why use
NOT?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4f9ec267.421924235@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #11779 |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:59:27 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: >>The problem is that nobody (including MPE) removed their version >>of NOT from their implementations - it was perfectly legal to >>leave it in. > >Gforth never contained NOT, but then we only started after it was >clear that NOT was not in ANS Forth. > >>I have long believed that marking words as obsolete is not enough. > >NOT was not made obsolete. It is not in Forth-94 at all. I think that you are missing the point. Words that the TC (or community) believe should die out, e.g. NOT or FORGET, need to be marked in such a way that implementers make an effort to remove them. If we don't do this, there will be discussions about NOT in another twenty years, nearly forty years after NOT was removed from a standards document. A possible wording is to say that systems containing such words are non-standard. This gives us a formal way to get rid of words that only takes two iterations 1) make word obsolete 2) make systems containing them non-standard >One approach would have been to mark NOT as reserved word name, so >that systems providing NOT would be non-standard. That might have >cooled the usage down enough to allow re-standardization now, but OTOH >there would then be no common practice. I agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, lack of common practice (as opposed to common name) indicates lack of need. >And looking at the discussion, the problem is that there is no >consensus what NOT should mean, so existing implementations do not >come into play anyway (we already disagree before we come to that). It really does not matter what NOT "ought" to mean. In the current situation, using that name is irresponsible for portability. >IMO the current approach works quite well: 0= is very explicit about >its meaning, and INVERT, too (to a lesser degree, though). Why use >NOT? I agree. 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 | "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-01 07:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.wdl91m1osu5d0p@david> |
| In reply to | #11789 |
Stephen Pelc wrote: > > Anton Ertl wrote: >> >> One approach would have been to mark NOT as reserved word name, so >> that systems providing NOT would be non-standard. That might have >> cooled the usage down enough to allow re-standardization now, but OTOH >> there would then be no common practice. > > I agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, lack > of common practice (as opposed to common name) indicates lack of > need. I did argue for reserving NOT in the '94 document but was drowned out by the chorus of "let's not go there again". A similar problem exists for " (quote) which was also dropped from Forth-94. The same problem occurred when I suggested reserving the names of the obsolete words that we dropped from Forth200x. -- Peter Knaggs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web