Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #134925 > unrolled thread

ciforth model

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-16 15:38 +0200
    Re: ciforth model dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 11:44 +1000
      Re: ciforth model anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-04-17 07:29 +0000
        Re: ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-17 12:10 +0200
          Re: ciforth model anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-04-18 10:26 +0000
            Re: ciforth model peter <peter.noreply@tin.it> - 2026-04-18 18:11 +0200
            Re: ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-18 20:57 +0200
              Re: ciforth model anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-04-19 11:08 +0000
                Re: ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-20 13:39 +0200
            Re: ciforth model peter <peter.noreply@tin.it> - 2026-05-21 10:28 +0200
              Re: ciforth model minforth <minforth@gmx.net> - 2026-05-22 12:04 +0200
              Re: ciforth model anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-23 18:12 +0000
                Re: ciforth model peter <peter.noreply@tin.it> - 2026-05-23 23:09 +0200
                Re: ciforth model peter <peter.noreply@tin.it> - 2026-05-24 10:07 +0200
                  Re: ciforth model anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-05-25 13:34 +0000
                    Re: ciforth model peter <peter.noreply@tin.it> - 2026-05-27 10:42 +0200
        Re: ciforth model Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 19:39 +0200
        Re: ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-22 22:48 +0200
          Re: ciforth model Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2026-04-24 10:38 -0700
            Re: ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-25 11:54 +0200
              Re: ciforth model Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2026-04-25 13:22 -0700
                Re: ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-26 14:05 +0200
    Re: ciforth model Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2026-04-17 00:27 -0700
      Re: ciforth model albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2026-04-17 12:13 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#134973

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
> If you have a conflict, you rename the new offending definition,
> as you do now. 

How do you know when there is a conflict?  We're talking about a hash
collision, right?  Are we supposed to guarantee that the hash function
won't change between interpreter versions and that sort of thing?

"As you do now": well, no; I've never used a Forth that faced this
issue.  All the ones I've used have stored the entire name instead of
hashing.  I thought (or at least hoped) that the different lossy
compression schemes from the early days were historical artifacts due to
the very small machines of the era.  By the time of the Commodore 64,
those tricks were not needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134985

In article <87bjf64wpe.fsf@nightsong.com>,
Paul Rubin  <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
>> If you have a conflict, you rename the new offending definition,
>> as you do now.
>
>How do you know when there is a conflict?  We're talking about a hash
>collision, right?  Are we supposed to guarantee that the hash function
>won't change between interpreter versions and that sort of thing?
You know there is a conflict because the message:
    : aapx1 ; ISN'T UNIQUE  \ because there was aapy1
You donot want a hash conflict, as the hash replaces the name.

>
>"As you do now": well, no; I've never used a Forth that faced this
Yes you do encounter name collisions. See below.
>issue.  All the ones I've used have stored the entire name instead of
>hashing.  I thought (or at least hoped) that the different lossy
>compression schemes from the early days were historical artifacts due to
>the very small machines of the era.  By the time of the Commodore 64,
>those tricks were not needed.

You defined a constant SIZE, and then discovered that
the name was used in another part of the program. You then
redefine it with THINGO-SIZE or some such.
This doesn't change a bit if you use 3+last names. Collusion are
more probable, but the first FIG-Forth were usable.

If you have a SIZE and then you define size, you have a conflict
caused by case-insensitivity. You redefine the second size.
    : SIZE ; ISN'T UNIQUE  \ because there was size

How is this different?

Groetjes Albert
-- 
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134927

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
> However we could squeeze for 16 bits, without logically affecting the model.

These days for such a constrained target, it's probably best to tether
from a bigger machine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134930

In article <87ecke59nq.fsf@nightsong.com>,
Paul Rubin  <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
>> However we could squeeze for 16 bits, without logically affecting the model.
>
>These days for such a constrained target, it's probably best to tether
>from a bigger machine.

What was the argument about? See my answer to Anton Ertl.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web