Groups > comp.lang.forth > #1242 > unrolled thread

made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

Started by	gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
First post	2011-04-17 00:34 -0700
Last post	2011-04-21 18:33 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 166 — 22 participants

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

  made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 00:34 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-17 02:29 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> - 2011-04-18 12:55 -0700
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-18 14:45 -0700
        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-19 09:06 +0000
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-18 20:30 -0700
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-18 20:33 -0700
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de> - 2011-04-19 13:04 +0200
        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-19 22:09 +0200
          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial "The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> - 2011-04-19 23:40 -0700
            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-20 21:27 +0200
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> - 2011-04-20 14:56 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-04-20 22:42 +0000
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-20 22:26 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-21 20:51 +0200
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2011-04-26 16:40 +0000
                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-04-26 22:23 +0200
                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 13:34 -0700
                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-27 14:48 +0000
              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 04:07 -0500
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 07:38 -0700
                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 08:10 -0700
                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-22 12:35 +0000
                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 08:51 -0700
                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-23 10:17 +0000
                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 18:05 -0700
                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 11:16 -0500
                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-23 11:26 +0000
                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 18:07 -0700
                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 00:10 -0700
                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 11:38 -0700
                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-21 15:13 -0500
                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 14:07 -0700
                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:05 -0700
                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:24 -0700
                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-22 12:48 +0000
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:51 -0700
                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 17:41 -0700
                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 18:16 -0700
                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-21 18:58 -0700
                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 19:49 -0700
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:02 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-22 06:59 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 01:20 -0700
                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 21:11 -0700
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:16 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:12 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 07:38 +0100
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 00:05 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-25 13:34 +0100
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 08:50 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:11 -0700
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-22 00:18 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:19 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 10:43 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 13:17 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 16:32 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-25 18:21 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Charles G Montgomery <cgm@physics.utoledo.edu> - 2011-04-26 19:36 -0400
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-26 21:05 -0700
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 23:36 -0700
                                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-27 08:57 -0700
                                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-28 11:53 +0000
                                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-29 22:21 -0700
                                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-27 17:41 +0100
                                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-27 09:53 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-26 11:39 +0000
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:22 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-26 17:51 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-23 10:33 +0000
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 00:48 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-29 22:24 -0700
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 09:44 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 11:36 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-22 17:08 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 18:11 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-23 00:49 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-23 03:55 -0500
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:47 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-23 11:12 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-30 16:33 +0100
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:03 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-05-02 22:15 +0200
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-02 19:15 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-05-04 08:14 +0100
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-04 00:51 -0700
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-05-04 22:03 +0100
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-30 03:15 -0500
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-05-01 19:04 -1000
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-27 22:58 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-28 03:37 -0500
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 08:54 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-28 12:12 -0500
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 21:34 -0700
                                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-29 02:27 -0500
                                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-29 15:09 -0700
                                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-02 21:47 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 10:49 -0700
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-28 21:57 -0700
                                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 13:28 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 11:01 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:02 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-25 07:08 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-26 10:47 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 10:58 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-04-27 22:39 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-28 10:43 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-05-05 04:39 -0400
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-05 04:10 -0500
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2011-04-23 09:53 +0000
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-04-23 14:59 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-23 16:10 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:47 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-05-03 14:23 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-04 01:48 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-05-04 05:23 -0500
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial John Passaniti <jpassaniti@ashly.com> - 2011-05-04 11:17 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-05-04 12:03 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:59 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-05-01 23:48 -0700
                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-22 03:22 -0500
                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 10:28 -0700
                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-22 12:37 -0500
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de> - 2011-04-22 20:07 +0200
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-22 18:55 +0000
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:25 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-24 03:27 -0500
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 20:20 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-25 03:24 -0500
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-25 11:55 -1000
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:45 -0700
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-25 21:49 -1000
                                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 02:39 -0700
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-04-26 03:19 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-26 10:01 +0000
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-23 03:43 -0500
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:53 -0700
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 20:27 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-25 03:35 -0500
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-26 00:20 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-04-26 04:02 -0500
                                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-04-26 22:40 +0200
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-25 14:16 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:25 -0700
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 02:47 -0700
                                    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-04-26 10:22 +0000
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-04-26 10:45 -0700
                                      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-26 22:19 +0200
                                        Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-04-27 21:05 +0200
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-22 11:44 -0700
                          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-22 11:46 -1000
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2011-04-23 08:02 +0100
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-23 23:46 -0700
                            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 01:32 -0700
                              Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-04-24 08:36 -1000
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 19:43 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-24 21:07 -0700
                                Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-04-25 11:04 +0000
                                  Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-25 23:02 -0700
            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-20 18:17 -0700
          Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:19 -0700
            Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 15:27 -0700
    Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 16:54 -0700
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-21 17:09 -0700
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial foxchip <fox@ultratechnology.com> - 2011-04-21 17:57 -0700
      Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-21 18:33 -0700

Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →

#1242 — made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

From	gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Date	2011-04-17 00:34 -0700
Subject	made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial
Message-ID	<fa0405c0-626f-4f4b-a1cb-64035d984d9d@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>

http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipulation-Tutorial.html#Stack-Manipulation-Tutorial

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1246

From	"The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com>
Date	2011-04-17 02:29 -0700
Message-ID	<69afdd7c-135c-4d8b-8932-a6db451e6dc4@gu8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1242

On Apr 17, 9:34 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipul...

17 s>d d>f 3 s>d d>f f**

;-)

Hans

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

#1292

From	alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org>
Date	2011-04-18 12:55 -0700
Message-ID	<8e8b828c-6294-4b27-99b5-c9cdc67d8e35@m23g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1242

On Apr 17, 2:34 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipul...

The exercise,
Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more than
once.

One answer,

: Solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 )
  dup over *    \ n n^2
  over *        \ n n^3
  dup -rot * ;  \ n^3 n^4   ok
  ok
17 solution . .  83521 4913  ok

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

#1294

From	"The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com>
Date	2011-04-18 14:45 -0700
Message-ID	<c53fc343-ae3d-4d19-982a-c2fc25c757ef@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1292

On 18 apr, 21:55, alberto pasquale <albe...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:34 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipul...
>
> The exercise,
> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more than
> once.
: ^3^4 dup dup dup * * dup rot * ;  ok
17 ^3^4 . . 83521 4913  ok

Hans Bezemer

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

#1309

From	Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
Date	2011-04-19 09:06 +0000
Message-ID	<ljw6ne.1mg@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
In reply to	#1294

In article <c53fc343-ae3d-4d19-982a-c2fc25c757ef@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
The Beez' <hansoft@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 18 apr, 21:55, alberto pasquale <albe...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 2:34=A0am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipul...
>>
>> The exercise,
>> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more than
>> once.
>: ^3^4 dup dup dup * * dup rot * ;  ok
>17 ^3^4 . . 83521 4913  ok

: ^3^4  >R  R@ R@ * R@ *   DUP R> * ;

>
>Hans Bezemer

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]

#1298

From	BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net>
Date	2011-04-18 20:30 -0700
Message-ID	<6ead0c70-a43a-4fbd-b2a6-fdee96746f23@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1292

On Apr 18, 3:55 pm, alberto pasquale <albe...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:34 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipul...
>
> The exercise,
> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more than
> once.
>
> One answer,
>
> : Solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 )
>   dup over *    \ n n^2
>   over *        \ n n^3
>   dup -rot * ;  \ n^3 n^4   ok
>   ok
> 17 solution . .  83521 4913  ok

: >>R POSTPONE DUP POSTPONE >R ; IMMEDIATE

: solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 ) DUP DUP DUP >>R * * DUP R> * ;

17 solution

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

#1299

From	BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net>
Date	2011-04-18 20:33 -0700
Message-ID	<80931f69-30bd-4995-bed6-0d9f35a0f608@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1292

On Apr 18, 3:55 pm, alberto pasquale <albe...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:34 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipul...
>
> The exercise,
> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more than
> once.
>
> One answer,
>
> : Solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 )
>   dup over *    \ n n^2
>   over *        \ n n^3
>   dup -rot * ;  \ n^3 n^4   ok
>   ok
> 17 solution . .  83521 4913  ok

Oops, didn't hit .s, I had an extra DUP

[UNDEFINED] >>R [IF] : >>R POSTPONE DUP POSTPONE >R ; IMMEDIATE
[THEN]

: solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 ) DUP DUP >>R * * DUP R> * ;

17 Solution

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

#1314

From	David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de>
Date	2011-04-19 13:04 +0200
Message-ID	<87vcyafqn8.fsf@snail.Pool>
In reply to	#1292

>>>>> "alberto" == alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> writes:

> On Apr 17, 2:34 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Stack-Manipul...

> The exercise, Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without
> writing 17 more than once.

> One answer,

> : Solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 ) dup over * \ n n^2 over * \ n n^3 dup -rot
> * ; \ n^3 n^4 ok ok 17 solution . .  83521 4913 ok

better solution:

: ^  ( n1 n2 -- n3 )  1 swap 0 ?do  over *  loop nip ;
: Solution   ( n -- n^3 n^4 )  dup 3 ^  swap 4 ^ ;

:)

David
-- 
GnuPG public key: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~dvdkhlng/dk.gpg
Fingerprint: B17A DC95 D293 657B 4205  D016 7DEF 5323 C174 7D40

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

#1325

From	mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix)
Date	2011-04-19 22:09 +0200
Message-ID	<89941316998436@frunobulax.edu>
In reply to	#1314

David Kuehling <dvdkhlng@gmx.de> writes Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

>>>>>> "alberto" == alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> writes:
[..]
>> The exercise, Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without
>> writing 17 more than once.

[..]

> better solution:

> : ^  ( n1 n2 -- n3 )  1 swap 0 ?do  over *  loop nip ;
> : Solution   ( n -- n^3 n^4 )  dup 3 ^  swap 4 ^ ;

[..]


Without using the number 17 at all:

:  square dup * ; ( u1 -- u2 ) 
 4 square 1+ constant 17
17 square    constant 17^2

: 17^3 ( -- u ) 17^2 17 * ;
: 17^4 ( -- u ) 17^2 square ;

FORTH> ' 17^3 idis
$012439C0  : [trashed]
$012439CA  push          $00001331 d#
$012439CF  ;
FORTH> ' 17^4 idis
$01243A40  : [trashed]
$01243A4A  push          $00014641 d#
$01243A4F  ;

-marcel

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

#1341

From	"The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com>
Date	2011-04-19 23:40 -0700
Message-ID	<40897826-9ec5-42c7-bb7f-540e964cddac@z33g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1325

On 19 apr, 22:09, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:
> David Kuehling <dvdkh...@gmx.de> writes Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial
Apart from any specific Forth implementation, I like Alberts solution
best, since it uses the return-stack as a sort of "local variable". I
saw this technique first in the implementation of the classic Fig-
Forth block editor. Anyway, all solutions seem to require 3 multiplies
and 5-6 stack instructions.

Hans Bezemer

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

#1355

From	mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix)
Date	2011-04-20 21:27 +0200
Message-ID	<99081415998436@frunobulax.edu>
In reply to	#1341

"The Beez'" <hansoft@bigfoot.com> wrote Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

> On 19 apr, 22:09, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:
>> David Kuehling <dvdkh...@gmx.de> writes Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial
> Apart from any specific Forth implementation, I like Alberts solution
> best, since it uses the return-stack as a sort of "local variable". 

Fail to see any good in that, sorry.

>                                                                     I
> saw this technique first in the implementation of the classic Fig-
> Forth block editor. Anyway, all solutions seem to require 3 multiplies
> and 5-6 stack instructions.

All could attempt to work without any multiplications or stack-ops at run-time. 
Let's see:

1)  17 s>d d>f 3 s>d d>f f** 

Returns a floating result and is only half of the solution.

Extension:

17e fdup 3e f** f>s .
         4e f** f>s .

2)  : Solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 ) 
      dup over *    \ n n^2 
      over *        \ n n^3 
      dup -rot * ;  \ n^3 n^4   ok 

      17 solution . .  83521 4913  ok 

Result ok, but uses a definition.

  17  dup over *    \ n n^2 
      over *        \ n n^3 
      dup -rot *    \ n^3 n^4
      swap . .

works as well, but still obscure.

3)  : ^3^4 dup dup dup * * dup rot * ;  ok 
    17 ^3^4 . . 83521 4913  ok 

Again a definition, but 

    17 dup dup dup * * dup rot * swap . .

works the same on real Forths.

4) : ^3^4  >R  R@ R@ * R@ *   DUP R> * ; 

No hope of removing the colon def., but on some compilers:

: 17^3^4  17 >R R@ R@ * R@ * DUP R> * SWAP ;  ok

FORTH> ' 17^3^4 idis
$012434C0  : [trashed]
$012434CA  push          $00014641 d#
$012434CF  push          $00001331 d#
$012434D4  ;

.. it could be done if you feel like it.

5) : >>R POSTPONE DUP POSTPONE >R ; IMMEDIATE 

   : solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 ) DUP DUP DUP >>R * * DUP R> * ; 

I do not feel like wasting time here :-)

6) : ^  ( n1 n2 -- n3 )  1 swap 0 ?do  over *  loop nip ; 
   : Solution   ( n -- n^3 n^4 )  dup 3 ^  swap 4 ^ ; 

   Could be   17 dup 3 ^ . 4 ^ . 

Can not be done at runtime, needs one definition, and this
definition is problably not optimizable. However, "^" might
be a useful word to keep/have, so I would judge this solution
as also a good one.

7) Mine (note that most Forths have a word like square).

In my view the solutions with R-stack manipulations are 
definitely too big, obscure, and slow. All other solutions
are acceptable, so choose the least obscure one.

-marcel

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

#1357

From	alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org>
Date	2011-04-20 14:56 -0700
Message-ID	<d5129313-af98-451b-a173-3caa4ae26b5b@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1355

On Apr 20, 2:27 pm, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:
> "The Beez'" <hans...@bigfoot.com> wrote Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial
>
> > On 19 apr, 22:09, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:
> >> David Kuehling <dvdkh...@gmx.de> writes Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial
> > Apart from any specific Forth implementation, I like Alberts solution
> > best, since it uses the return-stack as a sort of "local variable".
>
> Fail to see any good in that, sorry.
>
> >                                                                     I
> > saw this technique first in the implementation of the classic Fig-
> > Forth block editor. Anyway, all solutions seem to require 3 multiplies
> > and 5-6 stack instructions.
>
> All could attempt to work without any multiplications or stack-ops at run-time.
> Let's see:
>
> 1)  17 s>d d>f 3 s>d d>f f**
>
> Returns a floating result and is only half of the solution.
>
> Extension:
>
> 17e fdup 3e f** f>s .
>          4e f** f>s .
>
> 2)  : Solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 )
>       dup over *    \ n n^2
>       over *        \ n n^3
>       dup -rot * ;  \ n^3 n^4   ok
>
>       17 solution . .  83521 4913  ok
>
> Result ok, but uses a definition.
>
>   17  dup over *    \ n n^2
>       over *        \ n n^3
>       dup -rot *    \ n^3 n^4
>       swap . .
>
> works as well, but still obscure.
>
> 3)  : ^3^4 dup dup dup * * dup rot * ;  ok
>     17 ^3^4 . . 83521 4913  ok
>
> Again a definition, but
>
>     17 dup dup dup * * dup rot * swap . .
>
> works the same on real Forths.
>
> 4) : ^3^4  >R  R@ R@ * R@ *   DUP R> * ;
>
> No hope of removing the colon def., but on some compilers:
>
> : 17^3^4  17 >R R@ R@ * R@ * DUP R> * SWAP ;  ok
>
> FORTH> ' 17^3^4 idis
> $012434C0  : [trashed]
> $012434CA  push          $00014641 d#
> $012434CF  push          $00001331 d#
> $012434D4  ;
>
> .. it could be done if you feel like it.
>
> 5) : >>R POSTPONE DUP POSTPONE >R ; IMMEDIATE
>
>    : solution ( n -- n^3 n^4 ) DUP DUP DUP >>R * * DUP R> * ;
>
> I do not feel like wasting time here :-)
>
> 6) : ^  ( n1 n2 -- n3 )  1 swap 0 ?do  over *  loop nip ;
>    : Solution   ( n -- n^3 n^4 )  dup 3 ^  swap 4 ^ ;
>
>    Could be   17 dup 3 ^ . 4 ^ .
>
> Can not be done at runtime, needs one definition, and this
> definition is problably not optimizable. However, "^" might
> be a useful word to keep/have, so I would judge this solution
> as also a good one.
>
> 7) Mine (note that most Forths have a word like square).
>
> In my view the solutions with R-stack manipulations are
> definitely too big, obscure, and slow. All other solutions
> are acceptable, so choose the least obscure one.
>
> -marcel

This was a the end of a chapter teaching stack manipulation words, so
the solutions exemplify different stack usages.
In real life, the philosophy of Forth tells you that it is best to
solve as much of the problem as possible at compile time not at run
time so for a problem stated as:

Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more
than
once.

You write:

: Solution 4913 83521 ;

Zero multiplications, zero stack gymnastics and without writing 17 at
all :)

alberto

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

#1359

From	stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc)
Date	2011-04-20 22:42 +0000
Message-ID	<4daf5ded.6356525@192.168.0.50>
In reply to	#1357

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:56:42 -0700 (PDT), alberto pasquale
<alberto@hal-pc.org> wrote:

>This was a the end of a chapter teaching stack manipulation words, so
>the solutions exemplify different stack usages.
>In real life, the philosophy of Forth tells you that it is best to
>solve as much of the problem as possible at compile time not at run
>time so for a problem stated as:
>
>Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more
>than
>once.
>
>You write:
>
>: Solution 4913 83521 ;
>
>Zero multiplications, zero stack gymnastics and without writing 17 at
>all :)

Good solution!

Just to emphasise Marcel's point that modern compilers may do the
compile-time work for you, today's VFX Forth build 3208 gives:

dis solution 
SOLUTION 
( 004C6C90    8D6DF8 )                LEA       EBP, [EBP+-08]
( 004C6C93    C7450031130000 )        MOV       DWord Ptr [EBP],
00001331
( 004C6C9A    895D04 )                MOV       [EBP+04], EBX
( 004C6C9D    BB41460100 )            MOV       EBX, 00014641
( 004C6CA2    C3 )                    NEXT,
( 19 bytes, 5 instructions )
 ok

: t 17 dup dup dup * * tuck *  ;  ok
dis t 
T 
( 004DE500    8D6DF8 )                LEA       EBP, [EBP+-08]
( 004DE503    C7450031130000 )        MOV       DWord Ptr [EBP],
00001331
( 004DE50A    895D04 )                MOV       [EBP+04], EBX
( 004DE50D    BB41460100 )            MOV       EBX, 00014641
( 004DE512    C3 )                    NEXT,
( 19 bytes, 5 instructions )
 ok

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]

#1365

From	John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com>
Date	2011-04-20 22:26 -0700
Message-ID	<e58bd5f3-2f85-4d6c-ac76-ac06e5d965bf@gu8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1357

On Apr 20, 5:56 pm, alberto pasquale <albe...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing
> 17 more than once.
>
> You write:
>
> : Solution 4913 83521 ;
>
> Zero multiplications, zero stack gymnastics and without writing 17 at
> all :)

That actually isn't entirely silly.

In the Test Driven Development (TDD) methodology, one never writes any
code without writing a test for that code first.  And it's not
uncommon when you're just starting out on some code that the first
tests call on code that does The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly
Work.  So your solution, above, would be a perfectly reasonable
definition that would exercise (and pass) the test.  It seems silly,
but it's an important part of TDD; the definition of what the code
does is defined through continually adding and refining tests.  What
would reasonably occur next would be a test would be written that
might be "take an arbitrary integer x between 0 and the maxint^(1/4)
and produce x^3 and x^4 on the stack."  That would then force the
programmer to write code that passed both the first and second tests,
which would actual run-time calculation.

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

#1378

From	mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix)
Date	2011-04-21 20:51 +0200
Message-ID	<60841514998436@frunobulax.edu>
In reply to	#1357

alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> writes Re: made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

> On Apr 20, 2:27 pm, m...@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) wrote:
[..]
> This was a the end of a chapter teaching stack manipulation words, so
> the solutions exemplify different stack usages.
> In real life, the philosophy of Forth tells you that it is best to
> solve as much of the problem as possible at compile time not at run
> time so for a problem stated as:

> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more than
> once.

> You write:

> : Solution 4913 83521 ;

> Zero multiplications, zero stack gymnastics and without writing 17 at all :)

Unfortunately, not automatically clear, and still a colon definition.

4913 83521 2constant Solution

FORTH> : Solution [ 17 dup square dup 1 m*/ ] 2literal ;  ok

Much clearer.

FORTH> see Solution
Flags: ANSI
$01243400  : Solution
$0124340A  push          $00001331 d#
$0124340F  push          $00014641 d#
$01243414  ;


-marcel

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

#1552

From	Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid>
Date	2011-04-26 16:40 +0000
Message-ID	<ip6sii$bjr$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#1357

alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>[...]
> This was a the end of a chapter teaching stack manipulation words, so
> the solutions exemplify different stack usages.
> In real life, the philosophy of Forth tells you that it is best to
> solve as much of the problem as possible at compile time not at run
> time so for a problem stated as:
> 
> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more
> than
> once.
> 
> You write:
> 
> : Solution 4913 83521 ;
> 
> Zero multiplications, zero stack gymnastics and without writing 17 at
> all :)
> 

Mental calculation can be further reduced by rewriting it as

hex 1331 14641

-- 
Marc

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

#1560

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Date	2011-04-26 22:23 +0200
Message-ID	<p6mj88-slk.ln1@vimes.paysan.nom>
In reply to	#1552

Marc Olschok wrote:
> Mental calculation can be further reduced by rewriting it as
> 
> hex 1331 14641

17 base ! 1000 10000

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

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

#1561

From	Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com>
Date	2011-04-26 13:34 -0700
Message-ID	<c81f23c5-249e-4d7b-b0cc-758c03721154@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#1560

On Apr 26, 9:23 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Marc Olschok wrote:
> > Mental calculation can be further reduced by rewriting it as
>
> > hex 1331 14641
>
> 17 base ! 1000 10000
>
> --
> Bernd Paysan
> "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

Oh my. That's cool!

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

#1571

From	anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Date	2011-04-27 14:48 +0000
Message-ID	<2011Apr27.164846@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
In reply to	#1552

Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>alberto pasquale <alberto@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>> Assignment: Write 17^3 and 17^4 in Forth, without writing 17 more
>> than
>> once.
...
>hex 1331 14641

In that vain, even easier (but also using features not known to the
students at the time, and missing the point):

decimal 17 base ! 1000 10000

- 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 2010: http://www.euroforth.org/ef10/

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

#1368

From	Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date	2011-04-21 04:07 -0500
Message-ID	<Q-ydnelbZeZLbjLQnZ2dnUVZ7vSdnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to	#1355

Marcel Hendrix <mhx@iae.nl> wrote:
> 
> In my view the solutions with R-stack manipulations are 
> definitely too big, obscure, and slow. All other solutions
> are acceptable, so choose the least obscure one.

For top marks, we can reject anything that does much stack
manipulation, and anything that uses the R-stack when it's not
necessary gets disqualified altogether.  There is some merit, I
suppose, to writing a word ^ , but IMO it's an over-generalized
solution.

This problem is all about minimizing stack manipulation.  The best
solution is the one that thrashes the stack the least, i.e. the one
where the ratio of work done to pointlessly moving things around is
the highest.  So what is the minimum amount of stack thrashing?  It's
four DUPs:

: cube ( n - n^3)   dup dup * * ;  ok
17 dup cube dup . * . 4913 83521  ok

The only way to reduce this any further is with a 2DUP, but it's not
an improvement:

17 dup 2dup * * dup . * . 4913 83521  ok

Andrew.

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

Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →

csiph-web

made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

Contents

#1242 — made it to page 4 of gforth tutorial

#1246

#1292

#1294

#1309

#1298

#1299

#1314

#1325

#1341

#1355

#1357

#1359

#1365

#1378

#1552

#1560

#1561

#1571

#1368