Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #7583 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2011-11-29 11:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-28 15:44 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 09:03 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 16:16 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-11-28 20:30 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 18:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bee <forth@calcentral.com> - 2011-11-28 19:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-11-29 06:49 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 11:14 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 09:10 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-30 06:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 08:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-30 01:24 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-01 18:25 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 09:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-02 06:23 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 19:40 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-03 00:58 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 18:33 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 09:35 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 10:44 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-03 19:56 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 10:02 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 14:56 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-03 19:22 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-03 20:42 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-04 10:42 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-05 14:15 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-04 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 14:23 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 07:05 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 16:03 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:21 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 14:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-08 01:00 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:18 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-07 23:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 11:02 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 11:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-08 07:48 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:20 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-12 06:35 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-12 09:00 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 20:26 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-15 00:53 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-14 10:21 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:42 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 01:49 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 11:20 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 15:21 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 13:05 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 21:13 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:45 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-22 08:29 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-21 23:03 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 08:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-23 08:50 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-23 07:01 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-23 08:27 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-24 13:38 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-25 02:37 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 09:08 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-26 12:17 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-27 07:37 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-27 03:48 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:03 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-28 08:59 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 04:23 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 14:01 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:03 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 10:40 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 23:16 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 14:25 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 09:51 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-30 08:08 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-31 18:29 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-31 10:54 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 10:20 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 00:41 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 15:43 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 03:22 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 16:58 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 15:00 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-01-03 09:08 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-03 10:28 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 12:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-12-22 17:39 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 09:13 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 09:26 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 10:39 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 12:00 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 12:16 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:44 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-16 07:37 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 19:42 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:44 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 03:25 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 12:37 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:54 -0800
PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-28 16:37 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 04:55 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 22:23 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:16 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Sieur de Bienville <morrimichael@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 13:13 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 04:51 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 12:12 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-07 23:31 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-07 07:37 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-01-07 16:58 +0100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:53 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:29 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 16:15 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 14:30 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:00 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 15:12 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:53 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:24 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:56 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:54 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-09 01:35 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-15 07:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-06 16:04 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 19:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 07:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 19:21 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-07 20:58 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-07 10:39 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 23:52 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 12:35 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:57 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 12:37 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-12-05 19:10 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 11:16 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 18:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-10 18:05 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-10 09:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-10 11:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-11 11:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-11 21:25 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-12 12:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-02 13:52 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-29 18:29 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-11-28 22:09 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 04:10 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 08:20 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 06:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 09:47 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-30 05:28 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 18:42 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-11-30 08:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 17:55 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 09:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-01 14:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 15:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:08 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 11:09 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 08:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-01 12:19 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:10 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-02 16:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 11:42 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-11-29 11:19 +0000
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1tcu015ks382y.l7wp1w7rbr7u$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #7799 |
Op Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:21:55 +1100 schreef Ed: > Alex McDonald wrote: >> On Dec 4, 10:15 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: >>> ... >>> If there are advanced uses, they are conspicuous by their absence. >>> After 40 years these surely would have been found and passed into >>> common usage. >> >> Since the issue you were having with CREATE and DOES> in separate >> words is common usage, it's perhaps down to experience and lack of >> necessity in your code. Here's a sample from the Win32Forth >> disassembler; >> >>: opstr ( -- "name" ) >> create parse-str ", ; >> >> \ OPSTR is a CREATE for a counted string. >> >>: inh ( -<name>- ) >> opstr does> count (.sop") drop ; >> ... > > No issue with this. INH is a defining word in the syntax specified by > Forth-83 and 94 > > : x <create> ... DOES> ... ; > >>> Exploiting wording in the Standard to elicit "new uses" is a favourite >>> c.l.f. pastime. Thankfully most are quickly forgotten - though not >>> before leaving users with the impression Forth is complicated. >> >> Only if you insist it's so. See above. > > I had in mind these examples. > > : doesbit does> @ ; > : x create , doesbit ; > > : x create , does> @ does> @ 1+ ; > > : doubledoes does> @ does> @ 1+ ; > : x create , doubledoes ; > > These have no common practice nor any practical value that > I can see, despite they may compile on many forths. > > Factoring "DOES>" into another word serves no purpose > other than make defining words more difficult to recognize. > > One DOES> in a definer is plentiful and sufficient. Anything > more is mind-boggling. > > My challenge stands. I have words in my assembler written by someone else before 1994 that are like this: : <name> CREATE .. DOES> .. CREATE .. DOES> .. ; To understand them took some time though. I have never had problem with their behavior. -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 00:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jc4v8b$1n5$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7807 |
Coos Haak wrote: > ... > I have words in my assembler written by someone else before 1994 that are > like this: > : <name> CREATE .. DOES> .. CREATE .. DOES> .. ; > > To understand them took some time though. I have never had problem with > their behavior. Nesting defining words gets a mention in FD14/1 "This idea is not merely a clever trick; it is the basis of most object-oriented Forth systems".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 23:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0fdd3de-c85b-4895-80ee-e8bc0104ac88@c13g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7799 |
On Dec 7, 5:21 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > > On Dec 4, 10:15 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > If there are advanced uses, they are conspicuous by their absence. > > > After 40 years these surely would have been found and passed into > > > common usage. > > > Since the issue you were having with CREATE and DOES> in separate > > words is common usage, it's perhaps down to experience and lack of > > necessity in your code. Here's a sample from the Win32Forth > > disassembler; > > > : opstr ( -- "name" ) > > create parse-str ", ; > > > \ OPSTR is a CREATE for a counted string. > > > : inh ( -<name>- ) > > opstr does> count (.sop") drop ; > > ... > > No issue with this. INH is a defining word in the syntax specified by > Forth-83 and 94 No. CREATE <name> is the defining word that DOES> refers to. > > : x <create> ... DOES> ... ; > > > > Exploiting wording in the Standard to elicit "new uses" is a favourite > > > c.l.f. pastime. Thankfully most are quickly forgotten - though not > > > before leaving users with the impression Forth is complicated. > > > Only if you insist it's so. See above. > > I had in mind these examples. > > : doesbit does> @ ; > : x create , doesbit ; > > : x create , does> @ does> @ 1+ ; > > : doubledoes does> @ does> @ 1+ ; > : x create , doubledoes ; > > These have no common practice nor any practical value that > I can see, despite they may compile on many forths. > > Factoring "DOES>" into another word serves no purpose > other than make defining words more difficult to recognize. > > One DOES> in a definer is plentiful and sufficient. Anything > more is mind-boggling. > > My challenge stands. Your challenge is to explain in terms of the Forth94 standards specification of CREATE ... DOES> why they are invalid. If that's not your claim, I shall assume that the statement that they are of "no common practice nor any practical value" is just your personal opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jbq5fc$tll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7799 |
On 07/12/2011 22:21, Ed wrote:
> Alex McDonald wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 10:15 pm, "Ed"<nos...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> If there are advanced uses, they are conspicuous by their absence.
>>> After 40 years these surely would have been found and passed into
>>> common usage.
>>
>> Since the issue you were having with CREATE and DOES> in separate
>> words is common usage, it's perhaps down to experience and lack of
>> necessity in your code. Here's a sample from the Win32Forth
>> disassembler;
>>
>> : opstr ( -- "name" )
>> create parse-str ", ;
>>
>> \ OPSTR is a CREATE for a counted string.
>>
>> : inh ( -<name>- )
>> opstr does> count (.sop") drop ;
>> ...
>
> No issue with this. INH is a defining word in the syntax specified by
> Forth-83 and 94
>
> : x<create> ... DOES> ... ;
>
>>> Exploiting wording in the Standard to elicit "new uses" is a favourite
>>> c.l.f. pastime. Thankfully most are quickly forgotten - though not
>>> before leaving users with the impression Forth is complicated.
>>
>> Only if you insist it's so. See above.
>
> I had in mind these examples.
>
> : doesbit does> @ ;
> : x create , doesbit ;
>
> : x create , does> @ does> @ 1+ ;
>
> : doubledoes does> @ does> @ 1+ ;
> : x create , doubledoes ;
>
> These have no common practice nor any practical value that
> I can see, despite they may compile on many forths.
The argument that the <create> and DOES> must exist in the same
definition is undermined by the example code in section A.16.6.2.0715 of
the ANS Forth standard.
>
> Factoring "DOES>" into another word serves no purpose
> other than make defining words more difficult to recognize.
>
DOES> cannot be used in a control structure. It makes sense to factor
out the DOES> code if you want to do something like:
: x DOES> one-behaviour ;
: y DOES> another-behaviour ;
: z CREATE ... if x else y then ;
> One DOES> in a definer is plentiful and sufficient. Anything
> more is mind-boggling.
That may be true. But the GForth manual gives a real-life use for two
DOES>'s in one word, see section 5.9.8.3, but that usage does appear to
be non-standard Forth.
Multiple DOES>'s could be used for a state machine where each DOES> puts
the machine into the next state e.g.
defer sm
: init does> sm ;
:noname
cr ." State: " drop 1 .
does> drop 2 . does> drop 3 . does> drop 4 . init
; is sm
: fsm create init ;
fsm x
x x x x x x x
State: 1 2 3 4
State: 1 2 3 ok
Which would be more useful if DOES> could be used on any CREATEd word,
not just the last one which also has to be the most recent definition.
>
> My challenge stands.
>
I don't think so, unless I've lost sight of what the challenge actually was.
--
Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 11:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Dec8.123539@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #7824 |
Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>That may be true. But the GForth manual gives a real-life use for two
>DOES>'s in one word, see section 5.9.8.3, but that usage does appear to
>be non-standard Forth.
The example is (from
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/Advanced-does_003e-usage-example.html>):
: define-format ( disasm-xt table-xt -- )
\ define an instruction format that uses disasm-xt for
\ disassembling and enters the defined instructions into table
\ table-xt
create 2,
does> ( u "inst" -- )
\ defines an anonymous word for disassembling instruction inst,
\ and enters it as u-th entry into table-xt
2@ swap here name string, ( u table-xt disasm-xt c-addr ) \ remember string
noname create 2, \ define anonymous word
execute lastxt swap ! \ enter xt of defined word into table-xt
does> ( addr w -- )
\ disassemble instruction w at addr
2@ >r ( addr w disasm-xt R: c-addr )
execute ( R: c-addr ) \ disassemble operands
r> count type ; \ print name
This example uses some non-standard words and is therefore
nonstandard, but the usage of DOES> is standard. It's even very much
in line with the usage that Ed likes, i.e. the DOES> in the same word
as the CREATE of the word it modifies; it's easy to turn it into a
fully Ed-compliant usage of DOES>:
: define-disinst ( u table-xt disasm-xt "inst" -- )
here name string, ( u table-xt disasm-xt c-addr ) \ remember string
noname create 2, \ define anonymous word
execute lastxt swap ! \ enter xt of defined word into table-xt
does> ( addr w -- )
\ disassemble instruction w at addr
2@ >r ( addr w disasm-xt R: c-addr )
execute ( R: c-addr ) \ disassemble operands
r> count type ; \ print name
: define-format ( disasm-xt table-xt -- )
\ define an instruction format that uses disasm-xt for
\ disassembling and enters the defined instructions into table
\ table-xt
create 2,
does> ( u "inst" -- )
\ defines an anonymous word for disassembling instruction inst,
\ and enters it as u-th entry into table-xt
2@ swap define-disinst ;
- 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 | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 07:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b721ab8-3e84-4525-90af-d44885dc7a0a@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7824 |
On Dec 8, 6:02 am, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 07/12/2011 22:21, Ed wrote: >> One DOES> in a definer is plentiful and sufficient. Anything >> more is mind-boggling. > That may be true. But the GForth manual gives a real-life use for two > DOES>'s in one word, see section 5.9.8.3, but that usage does > appear to be non-standard Forth. Further, the notion that two successive DOES> have to be two successive DOES> in one word follows from the unwillingness to recognize that CREATE DOES> from when it was first proposed was never limited to being used within one word, so two successive DOES> can be a more common action for a defined structure and then an alternate, less common action that applies to the same defined structure: : make-type1 CREATE build-thing DOES> foo1 ; : does-type2 DOES> foo2 ; make-type1 Something2 does-type2 ... is an idiom that was in use before the informal Forth83 standard from which Ed derives his claim that: : <name> ... CREATE ... DOES> ... ; ... is the "correct syntax" for CREATE DOES>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 00:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jc4v8c$1n5$2@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7824 |
Gerry Jackson wrote:
> ...
> The argument that the <create> and DOES> must exist in the same
> definition is undermined by the example code in section A.16.6.2.0715 of
> the ANS Forth standard.
They would have the same problem as others here - justifying *why*
they used it.
> DOES> cannot be used in a control structure. It makes sense to factor
> out the DOES> code if you want to do something like:
>
> : x DOES> one-behaviour ;
> : y DOES> another-behaviour ;
> : z CREATE ... if x else y then ;
Why not this
: x CREATE ... DOES> one-behaviour ;
: y CREATE ... DOES> another-behaviour ;
: z ... if x else y then ;
> > One DOES> in a definer is plentiful and sufficient. Anything
> > more is mind-boggling.
>
> ...
> Multiple DOES>'s could be used for a state machine where each DOES> puts
> the machine into the next state e.g.
Of the few state machines I've seen implemented in Forth, none have
employed multiple DOES>.
I note J.Noble's FSM (FD20/2) and yours employ a separated DOES> .
Seeing it used in a real application makes it a candidate for consideration.
However as Julian points out in the errata (FD20/3) ...
"I have separated the DOES> portion from the CREATE section of
the FSM compiler [...] following a suggestion from Morgenstern in
an old FD. ... It is not necessary to do this and the code Jerry sent
me keeps this in the FSM: definition..."
In FD14/1 Leo Morgenstern writing under the section 'Separating
CREATE and DOES> '.
"...This trick is not often used because it is not often useful..."
It begs the question whether a separated DOES> is ever useful.
Neither author seemed convinced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 06:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a46bfaf1-6264-47bb-a76e-8373d38938d5@4g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7983 |
On Dec 12, 1:20 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > Gerry Jackson wrote: > > ... > > The argument that the <create> and DOES> must exist in the same > > definition is undermined by the example code in section A.16.6.2.0715 of > > the ANS Forth standard. > > They would have the same problem as others here - justifying *why* > they used it. > > > DOES> cannot be used in a control structure. It makes sense to factor > > out the DOES> code if you want to do something like: > > > : x DOES> one-behaviour ; > > : y DOES> another-behaviour ; > > : z CREATE ... if x else y then ; > > Why not this > > : x CREATE ... DOES> one-behaviour ; > : y CREATE ... DOES> another-behaviour ; > > : z ... if x else y then ; Poor factoring. > > > > One DOES> in a definer is plentiful and sufficient. Anything > > > more is mind-boggling. > > > ... > > Multiple DOES>'s could be used for a state machine where each DOES> puts > > the machine into the next state e.g. > > Of the few state machines I've seen implemented in Forth, none have > employed multiple DOES>. > > I note J.Noble's FSM (FD20/2) and yours employ a separated DOES> . > Seeing it used in a real application makes it a candidate for consideration. > However as Julian points out in the errata (FD20/3) ... > > "I have separated the DOES> portion from the CREATE section of > the FSM compiler [...] following a suggestion from Morgenstern in > an old FD. ... It is not necessary to do this and the code Jerry sent > me keeps this in the FSM: definition..." > > In FD14/1 Leo Morgenstern writing under the section 'Separating > CREATE and DOES> '. > > "...This trick is not often used because it is not often useful..." > > It begs the question whether a separated DOES> is ever useful. > Neither author seemed convinced. This author is convinced it is useful, has used it extensively, and is unimpressed by an argument from authority. And it doesn't change the standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 09:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d111e08c-c2d6-4c31-ab41-97d90aef6007@v29g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7987 |
On Dec 12, 9:35 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > This author is convinced it is useful, has used it extensively, and is > unimpressed by an argument from authority. And it doesn't change the > standard. Quite. The burden of proof at this point in time is not on the utility of being able to have DOES> and CREATE in separate definitions, but on the utility of stripping out the present entitlement to do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jc5o0i$sjq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7983 |
On 12/12/2011 13:20, Ed wrote: > Gerry Jackson wrote: >> ... >> The argument that the<create> and DOES> must exist in the same >> definition is undermined by the example code in section A.16.6.2.0715 of >> the ANS Forth standard. > > They would have the same problem as others here - justifying *why* > they used it. > Why would they have to justify something that is permitted by the standard? If you look at the code DO-VOCABULARY is used twice - once in interpretation mode and the other in a compiled word. Justification is obvious - factoring and not wishing to put interpreted code into a colon definition. Anyway ISTM that it has already been justified by others. Where's the problem? >> DOES> cannot be used in a control structure. It makes sense to factor >> out the DOES> code if you want to do something like: >> >> : x DOES> one-behaviour ; >> : y DOES> another-behaviour ; >> : z CREATE ... if x else y then ; > > Why not this > > : x CREATE ... DOES> one-behaviour ; > : y CREATE ... DOES> another-behaviour ; > > : z ... if x else y then ; > If you want to needlessly replicate code, do that. >>> One DOES> in a definer is plentiful and sufficient. Anything >>> more is mind-boggling. >> >> ... >> Multiple DOES>'s could be used for a state machine where each DOES> puts >> the machine into the next state e.g. > > Of the few state machines I've seen implemented in Forth, none have > employed multiple DOES>. I haven't seen it either or used it myself, I just presented it as a possibility. > > I note J.Noble's FSM (FD20/2) and yours employ a separated DOES> . > Seeing it used in a real application makes it a candidate for consideration. > However as Julian points out in the errata (FD20/3) ... > > "I have separated the DOES> portion from the CREATE section of > the FSM compiler [...] following a suggestion from Morgenstern in > an old FD. ... It is not necessary to do this and the code Jerry sent > me keeps this in the FSM: definition..." > > In FD14/1 Leo Morgenstern writing under the section 'Separating > CREATE and DOES> '. > > "...This trick is not often used because it is not often useful..." It is not a trick and his opinion is just that, an opinion, and one that is not shared by many others. > > It begs the question whether a separated DOES> is ever useful. > Neither author seemed convinced. > So what. -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-15 00:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jca9rk$oee$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #8011 |
Gerry Jackson wrote: > >> ... > If you look at the code DO-VOCABULARY is used twice - once in > interpretation mode and the other in a compiled word. Justification is > obvious - factoring and not wishing to put interpreted code into a colon > definition. Anyway ISTM that it has already been justified by others. > Where's the problem? Precisely : VOCABULARY ( name -- ) WORDLIST CREATE , DOES> @ >R ( ) ( R: widnew ) GET-ORDER SWAP DROP ( wid1 ... widn-1 n ) R> SWAP SET-ORDER ; VOCABULARY FORTH FORTH-WORDLIST ' FORTH >BODY ! > >> DOES> cannot be used in a control structure. It makes sense to factor > >> out the DOES> code if you want to do something like: > >> > >> : x DOES> one-behaviour ; > >> : y DOES> another-behaviour ; > >> : z CREATE ... if x else y then ; > > > > Why not this > > > > : x CREATE ... DOES> one-behaviour ; > > : y CREATE ... DOES> another-behaviour ; > > > > : z ... if x else y then ; > > > > If you want to needlessly replicate code, do that. The standard allows factoring: : <create> CREATE ... ; : x <create> DOES> one-behaviour ; : y <create> DOES> another-behaviour ; : z ... if x else y then ; > > In FD14/1 Leo Morgenstern writing under the section 'Separating > > CREATE and DOES> '. > > > > "...This trick is not often used because it is not often useful..." > > It is not a trick and his opinion is just that, an opinion, and one that > is not shared by many others. That will come as a blow to those who have argued CREATE ... DOES> is fatally flawed and forth would have been better off with a single word replacement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-14 10:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d7c221e-98a9-461e-ac3a-95ae603a778c@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8063 |
On Dec 14, 1:53 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > Gerry Jackson wrote: > > >> ... > > If you look at the code DO-VOCABULARY is used twice - once in > > interpretation mode and the other in a compiled word. Justification is > > obvious - factoring and not wishing to put interpreted code into a colon > > definition. Anyway ISTM that it has already been justified by others. > > Where's the problem? > > Precisely > > : VOCABULARY ( name -- ) > WORDLIST CREATE , > DOES> > @ >R ( ) ( R: widnew ) > GET-ORDER SWAP DROP ( wid1 ... widn-1 n ) > R> SWAP SET-ORDER ; > > VOCABULARY FORTH FORTH-WORDLIST ' FORTH >BODY ! > > > > > > > > > > > >> DOES> cannot be used in a control structure. It makes sense to factor > > >> out the DOES> code if you want to do something like: > > > >> : x DOES> one-behaviour ; > > >> : y DOES> another-behaviour ; > > >> : z CREATE ... if x else y then ; > > > > Why not this > > > > : x CREATE ... DOES> one-behaviour ; > > > : y CREATE ... DOES> another-behaviour ; > > > > : z ... if x else y then ; > > > If you want to needlessly replicate code, do that. > > The standard allows factoring: > > : <create> CREATE ... ; > > : x <create> DOES> one-behaviour ; > : y <create> DOES> another-behaviour ; > > : z ... if x else y then ; ??? So what exactly is your argument? This contradicts it. > > > > In FD14/1 Leo Morgenstern writing under the section 'Separating > > > CREATE and DOES> '. > > > > "...This trick is not often used because it is not often useful..." > > > It is not a trick and his opinion is just that, an opinion, and one that > > is not shared by many others. > > That will come as a blow to those who have argued CREATE ... > DOES> is fatally flawed and forth would have been better off with > a single word replacement. Double ??? Who are these people?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-16 14:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jceeon$t3f$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #8072 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > On Dec 14, 1:53 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > ..> > > The standard allows factoring: > > > > : <create> CREATE ... ; > > > > : x <create> DOES> one-behaviour ; > > : y <create> DOES> another-behaviour ; > > > > : z ... if x else y then ; > > ??? > > So what exactly is your argument? ... Having a separate definition with DOES> is never necessary and it is a matter of interpretation whether '94 allows it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-16 01:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bc6465d-8f36-467d-9c84-98bd53fbacaf@cb3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8129 |
On Dec 16, 3:42 am, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > > On Dec 14, 1:53 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > > ..> > > > The standard allows factoring: > > > > : <create> CREATE ... ; > > > > : x <create> DOES> one-behaviour ; > > > : y <create> DOES> another-behaviour ; > > > > : z ... if x else y then ; > > > ??? > > > So what exactly is your argument? ... > > Having a separate definition with DOES> is never necessary > and it is a matter of interpretation whether '94 allows it. In other words... you're not sure. I think we're done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-20 11:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jcokas$65r$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #8133 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > On Dec 16, 3:42 am, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > > Alex McDonald wrote: > ... > > > So what exactly is your argument? ... > > > > Having a separate definition with DOES> is never necessary > > and it is a matter of interpretation whether '94 allows it. > > In other words... you're not sure. I think we're done. I'm sure I've yet to see a convincing argument to support these uses of DOES> . Insofar as no one may enforce their interpretation of the standard upon others, then Forth will be subject to unproven and distracting practices whose only defence is someone's assertion that it was legal to do. IMO Forth deserves better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-19 15:21 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <i7WdnWSLGOJif3LTnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8231 |
On 12/19/11 2:20 PM, Ed wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: >> On Dec 16, 3:42 am, "Ed"<nos...@invalid.com> wrote: >>> Alex McDonald wrote: >> ... >>>> So what exactly is your argument? ... >>> >>> Having a separate definition with DOES> is never necessary >>> and it is a matter of interpretation whether '94 allows it. >> >> In other words... you're not sure. I think we're done. > > I'm sure I've yet to see a convincing argument to support these > uses of DOES> . > > Insofar as no one may enforce their interpretation of the standard > upon others, then Forth will be subject to unproven and distracting > practices whose only defence is someone's assertion that it was > legal to do. IMO Forth deserves better. The ANSI process includes provision for writing to a TC for clarification. Unfortunately, the ANS Forth TC is disbanded, but the Forth 20xx group seems to be functional. So, if you seriously want an official clarification, you have two options: 1. Formally write to the Forth 20xx group with a specific request for clarification (the more specific the request, the greater the liklihood of getting a useful response). 2. Propose specific revised wording for the new standard. FWIW, all language standards have this problem, as it's virtually impossible to write a complex standard which will present zero ambiguities to a large community of readers all of whom have different backgrounds and different expectations. 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 | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-20 13:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jcoqe4$8vl$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #8232 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 12/19/11 2:20 PM, Ed wrote: > ... > > Insofar as no one may enforce their interpretation of the standard > > upon others, then Forth will be subject to unproven and distracting > > practices whose only defence is someone's assertion that it was > > legal to do. IMO Forth deserves better. > > ... > FWIW, all language standards have this problem, as it's virtually > impossible to write a complex standard which will present zero > ambiguities to a large community of readers all of whom have different > backgrounds and different expectations. My interest lies not in clarification by standards committees but in testing the efficacy of the practices being discussed. It is in that sense I suggest "Forth deserves better". It is an issue of credibility, not legality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-19 21:13 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <SemdnbORUds4qG3TnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8234 |
On 12/19/11 4:05 PM, Ed wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 12/19/11 2:20 PM, Ed wrote: >> ... >>> Insofar as no one may enforce their interpretation of the standard >>> upon others, then Forth will be subject to unproven and distracting >>> practices whose only defence is someone's assertion that it was >>> legal to do. IMO Forth deserves better. >> >> ... >> FWIW, all language standards have this problem, as it's virtually >> impossible to write a complex standard which will present zero >> ambiguities to a large community of readers all of whom have different >> backgrounds and different expectations. > > My interest lies not in clarification by standards committees but in > testing the efficacy of the practices being discussed. It is in that > sense I suggest "Forth deserves better". It is an issue of credibility, > not legality. So, exactly what would you like to see happen? Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-20 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71b42619-7792-43ab-af33-7291c2cd700f@cs7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8234 |
On Dec 19, 9:05 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > My interest lies not in clarification by standards committees but in > testing the efficacy of the practices being discussed. Except, given that Forth94 was codifying an already existing legacy practice, what reasons have you advanced for abandoning the legacy practice?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 08:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ef2dc18$0$6987$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8244 |
BruceMcF wrote: > Except, given that Forth94 was codifying an already existing legacy > practice, what reasons have you advanced for abandoning the legacy > practice? Well, for one thing an old poll on HCC Forth (a Dutch Forth chapter) showed most members didn't have a clue how to use DOES>. And I had a problem interpreting what the darn thing was supposed to do as well - when I remember correctly. The ANS Forth standard in itself is pretty clear in as far the functionality of DOES>: change the behavior of the last CREATEd definition. Ironically, the rationale only clouds it by just specifying a "Typical use" without any rationale at all! So what am I supposed to implement? And like Paysan correctly stated: if the functionality is clearly defined as such why can't I apply any interpretation semantics? In short, I'm not saying you have to abandon any legacy practices, just thighten the definition. As shown here there are plenty of open questions to be answered and many new applications to be had. Just being conservative doesn't help the development and application of this language. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web