Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10270 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-21 10:37 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:34 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-26 20:40 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 15:00 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-27 02:20 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 08:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:08 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 09:35 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:47 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 12:33 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:24 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:07 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-27 00:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-21 15:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 16:36 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:47 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-23 07:48 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-23 17:28 +0000
Re: Which standard? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-03-23 20:51 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-24 00:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 08:40 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 04:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 19:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:03 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 19:20 +0100
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 17:54 -0400
Re: Which standard? "The Other Rod Pemberton" <dontaskdonttell@pemberton.it> - 2012-03-23 18:12 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 20:39 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:05 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 09:15 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 22:52 -1000
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 10:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-24 11:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 21:46 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-27 02:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 01:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 14:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-23 12:48 +0100
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 13:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-21 17:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 09:27 +0100
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-22 12:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 19:19 -0400
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-22 08:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:25 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:10 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-24 11:19 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 07:55 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:12 +0000
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 21:03 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 22:28 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 16:36 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 05:15 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 12:16 +0000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 01:26 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 15:37 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-25 22:24 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-26 10:49 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 20:00 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:21 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 18:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:21 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 01:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:06 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 10:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:31 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:25 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 01:43 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 15:56 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-25 09:18 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 06:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:04 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 04:39 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 22:29 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-26 18:09 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 11:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-26 20:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 11:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-29 00:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-03-30 16:13 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-30 13:01 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 09:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-31 08:18 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:43 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 10:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 08:22 -1000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 14:03 -0500
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-10 12:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 09:26 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-11 06:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-11 12:42 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 09:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 11:28 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Which standard? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-04-27 23:34 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-28 04:13 -0500
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 12:53 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 01:06 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 11:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 04:35 -0500
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 12:01 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 05:17 -0500
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:01 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 20:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:18 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:36 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:48 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 13:38 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 14:33 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 07:33 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 19:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-29 10:36 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-30 16:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-05-01 07:38 +0100
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-01 09:36 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-02 10:30 +0000
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 08:33 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:07 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 11:50 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-30 15:27 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 13:39 -1000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-05-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-05-03 09:16 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-04 12:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-05-03 14:27 -0500
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-05-04 01:56 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-05-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:18 -0400
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:35 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 16:43 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 08:09 -0400
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 10:27 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 06:19 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 07:49 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-10 12:38 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 23:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-27 12:04 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 16:10 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-03 09:27 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:44 +0000
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-05-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 05:47 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-24 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 05:44 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:52 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 12:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 06:24 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 12:20 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 03:25 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 04:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-22 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 22:14 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 23:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:41 -0700
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-27 08:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-28 01:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-31 13:46 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-10 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KdednWxB75Pl0xnSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11107 |
Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> > Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> In article <2012Mar26.110424@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, >> >> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> >> >"Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> writes: >> >> >>Although I would >> >> >>have a significant problem with NOT due to its history. >> >> > >> >> >In theory, after some time of de-standardization of NOT that name >> >> >should have cooled down enough that we should be able to give it a new >> >> >standard meaning. >> >> > >> >> >In practice, the last time it was discussed, it turned out that some >> >> >people thing that NOT should be INVERT and some people think that NOT >> >> >should be 0=, so I doubt that we will reach a consensus even if >> >> >someone makes a proposal. >> >> >> >> NOT clearly is a logical transformation, so it should yield >> >> a well-formed flag. Are there really people who think otherwise? >> > >> > Yes, me for instance. The main reason is consistency across the logical >> > operations. It would be strange to accept AND, OR and XOR as bitwise >> > operations without expecting NOT to do likewise. >> >> Mmm, I get that, but it's a very theoretical objection. Surely the >> ability to say NOT IF is far more important. We already have INVERT . > > Well, we also already have 0=. I agree that the phrase NOT IF is > useful and would like to see NOT reintroduced, although I can live with > having two distinct words INVERT and 0= in order to avoid confusion. > But I do not quite see why this should force NOT to have the behaviour > of 0= instead of INVERT, and my above point was just that considering > NOT as logical operator does not in any prohibit this. > > On the contrary, I would find it outright confusing if NOT did not > operate bitwise just as AND and OR; and certainly the "principle of > least surprise" is a quite practical one. Surely the principle of least surprise says that "NOT IF" should do something if and only if the condition is not true, i.e. all bits zero. > The important requirement for logical operators like NOT, AND or OR > is not that they *produce* well formed flags regardless of the > input, but that they *preserve* well formed flags. Those operations > that must always produce well formed flags are relational operations > like = , <> , 0= , 0<> etc.. > > But let's return to the example with NOT IF to see whether there is > a problem at all. There are two possibilities: > > (a) The previously produced TOS is a well formed flag. Then NOT will > preserve this wff, whether it behaves as INVERT or as 0=. Agreed. > (b) The previously produced TOS is some computed number and most likely > not a well formed flag. Then I would indeed prefer to use 0= IF instead > of NOT IF because the former is exactly what I am doing: I test if the > TOS is equal to 0. Moreover, if I later look at the code 0= IF will > remind me that the previously computated TOS is perhaps not a well formed > flag. > > So basically, a NOT with behaviour of 0= would only make a difference in > those situations where I would prefer to use the more informative 0= > anyway. Hence my preference for a NOT with the behaviour of INVERT. I wonder if this is an "English as a first language" thing? :-) As Elizabeth said, NOT was invented precisely to allow you to say NOT IF, and this is just to make the code easier to read than 0= IF . Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-10 08:22 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <TMidnf-7e5r35xnSnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11114 |
On 4/10/12 5:15 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > Marc Olschok<nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> Andrew Haley<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: ... >>> Mmm, I get that, but it's a very theoretical objection. Surely the >>> ability to say NOT IF is far more important. We already have INVERT . >> >> Well, we also already have 0=. I agree that the phrase NOT IF is >> useful and would like to see NOT reintroduced, although I can live with >> having two distinct words INVERT and 0= in order to avoid confusion. >> But I do not quite see why this should force NOT to have the behaviour >> of 0= instead of INVERT, and my above point was just that considering >> NOT as logical operator does not in any prohibit this. >> >> On the contrary, I would find it outright confusing if NOT did not >> operate bitwise just as AND and OR; and certainly the "principle of >> least surprise" is a quite practical one. > > Surely the principle of least surprise says that "NOT IF" should do > something if and only if the condition is not true, i.e. all bits > zero. > >> The important requirement for logical operators like NOT, AND or OR >> is not that they *produce* well formed flags regardless of the >> input, but that they *preserve* well formed flags. Those operations >> that must always produce well formed flags are relational operations >> like = ,<> , 0= , 0<> etc.. >> >> But let's return to the example with NOT IF to see whether there is >> a problem at all. There are two possibilities: >> >> (a) The previously produced TOS is a well formed flag. Then NOT will >> preserve this wff, whether it behaves as INVERT or as 0=. > > Agreed. > >> (b) The previously produced TOS is some computed number and most likely >> not a well formed flag. Then I would indeed prefer to use 0= IF instead >> of NOT IF because the former is exactly what I am doing: I test if the >> TOS is equal to 0. Moreover, if I later look at the code 0= IF will >> remind me that the previously computated TOS is perhaps not a well formed >> flag. >> >> So basically, a NOT with behaviour of 0= would only make a difference in >> those situations where I would prefer to use the more informative 0= >> anyway. Hence my preference for a NOT with the behaviour of INVERT. > > I wonder if this is an "English as a first language" thing? :-) As > Elizabeth said, NOT was invented precisely to allow you to say NOT IF, > and this is just to make the code easier to read than 0= IF . This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list. 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-10 14:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Vr6dnYp0fe5zHhnSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11118 |
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: > > This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list. It does. I just assumed that, 15 years on, any issue to do with legacy definitions of NOT was dead, so NOT could be resurrected to have its "obviously correct" meaning. I was wrong, but I still miss being able to say NOT IF . Oh well, I suppose it's gone forever. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-10 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d5fb13c-f04e-4e0a-807e-0c28dce602b1@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11119 |
On Apr 10, 8:03 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > > > > This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list. > > It does. I just assumed that, 15 years on, any issue to do with > legacy definitions of NOT was dead, so NOT could be resurrected to have > its "obviously correct" meaning. I was wrong, but I still miss being > able to say NOT IF . Oh well, I suppose it's gone forever. > > Andrew. One could, of course, define : NOT-IF 0= IF ; and standardise that instead...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-10 09:26 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <6rOdnV3ZWL7-FBnSnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11120 |
On 4/10/12 9:17 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > On Apr 10, 8:03 pm, Andrew Haley<andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > wrote: >> Elizabeth D. Rather<erat...@forth.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list. >> >> It does. I just assumed that, 15 years on, any issue to do with >> legacy definitions of NOT was dead, so NOT could be resurrected to have >> its "obviously correct" meaning. I was wrong, but I still miss being >> able to say NOT IF . Oh well, I suppose it's gone forever. >> >> Andrew. > > One could, of course, define : NOT-IF 0= IF ; and standardise that > instead... Nah, you'd just get a storm of complaints that it wasn't : NOT-IF INVERT IF ; Too bad. 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 | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-11 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7127065a-b9ae-4f2f-a948-eff2b4c21197@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11121 |
On Apr 10, 8:26 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > On 4/10/12 9:17 AM, Alex McDonald wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 8:03 pm, Andrew Haley<andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > > wrote: > >> Elizabeth D. Rather<erat...@forth.com> wrote: > > >>> This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list. > > >> It does. I just assumed that, 15 years on, any issue to do with > >> legacy definitions of NOT was dead, so NOT could be resurrected to have > >> its "obviously correct" meaning. I was wrong, but I still miss being > >> able to say NOT IF . Oh well, I suppose it's gone forever. > > >> Andrew. > > > One could, of course, define : NOT-IF 0= IF ; and standardise that > > instead... > > Nah, you'd just get a storm of complaints that it wasn't > : NOT-IF INVERT IF ; > > Too bad. > > 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 90045http://www.forth.com > > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time > applications since 1973." > ================================================== OK, how about : NEVER DUP PERHAPS SWAP MAYBE AND ; : NOT-IF NEVER IF ; Then we're free to define : MAYBE INVERT ; : PERHAPS NOT ; Or if you're in the "other camp" : PERHAPS INVERT ; : MAYBE NOT ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-11 12:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m2bfa4.5fl@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #11119 |
In article <Vr6dnYp0fe5zHhnSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >> >> This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list. > >It does. I just assumed that, 15 years on, any issue to do with >legacy definitions of NOT was dead, so NOT could be resurrected to have >its "obviously correct" meaning. I was wrong, but I still miss being >able to say NOT IF . Oh well, I suppose it's gone forever. I miss it too, but not all is lost. My programs often start with a preambule like: " .. WANT prime? WANT class .. : SQ DUP * ; : <= > 0= ; : NOT 0= ; .. " And then : something ................ NOT IF ....... THEN .. ; > >Andrew. Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-11 09:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q--dnSN0NLhxChjSnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11151 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> In article <Vr6dnYp0fe5zHhnSnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@supernews.com>,
> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>>Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list.
>>
>>It does. I just assumed that, 15 years on, any issue to do with
>>legacy definitions of NOT was dead, so NOT could be resurrected to have
>>its "obviously correct" meaning. I was wrong, but I still miss being
>>able to say NOT IF . Oh well, I suppose it's gone forever.
>
> I miss it too, but not all is lost.
> My programs often start with a preambule like:
>
> "
> ..
> WANT prime?
> WANT class
> ..
> : SQ DUP * ;
> : <= > 0= ;
> : NOT 0= ;
> ..
> "
>
> And then
>
> : something ................ NOT IF ....... THEN .. ;
Yeah, I know what you mean. The trouble is that it rather reminds me
of those Pascal programmers who write C with
#define BEGIN {
#define END }
Ewwww... :-)
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-11 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a17e21fc-39dd-4b15-a5c1-6127bc91f4f5@t16g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11153 |
On Apr 11, 10:40 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:
> Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <Vr6dnYp0fe5zHhnSnZ2dnUVZ_qadn...@supernews.com>,
> > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> >>Elizabeth D. Rather <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>
> >>> This conversation encapsulates perfectly why NOT remains on the banned list.
>
> >>It does. I just assumed that, 15 years on, any issue to do with
> >>legacy definitions of NOT was dead, so NOT could be resurrected to have
> >>its "obviously correct" meaning. I was wrong, but I still miss being
> >>able to say NOT IF . Oh well, I suppose it's gone forever.
>
> > I miss it too, but not all is lost.
> > My programs often start with a preambule like:
>
> > "
> > ..
> > WANT prime?
> > WANT class
> > ..
> > : SQ DUP * ;
> > : <= > 0= ;
> > : NOT 0= ;
> > ..
> > "
>
> > And then
>
> > : something ................ NOT IF ....... THEN .. ;
> Yeah, I know what you mean. The trouble is that it
> rather reminds me of those Pascal programmers who write
> C with
> #define BEGIN {
> #define END }
> Ewwww... :-)
Ah, excellent point. Even though there is nothing at all wrong with a
library specifying NOT as an alias for 0=, it could lead to a negative
reaction on the part of some through guilt by association with someone
of someone doing something silly in some other setting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-11 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eradnftjpcjfLBjSnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11154 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:40?am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > My programs often start with a preambule like:
>>
>> > "
>> > ..
>> > WANT prime?
>> > WANT class
>> > ..
>> > : SQ DUP * ;
>> > : <= > 0= ;
>> > : NOT 0= ;
>> > ..
>> > "
>>
>> > And then
>>
>> > : something ................ NOT IF ....... THEN .. ;
>
>> Yeah, I know what you mean. The trouble is that it
>> rather reminds me of those Pascal programmers who write
>> C with
>
>> #define BEGIN {
>> #define END }
>
>> Ewwww... :-)
>
> Ah, excellent point. Even though there is nothing at all wrong with a
> library specifying NOT as an alias for 0=, it could lead to a negative
> reaction on the part of some through guilt by association with someone
> of someone doing something silly in some other setting.
[ I guess that was sarcasm, but I'll treat it as a serious point. ]
Just as with the "Pascal in C", it's the extra maintenance burden of
non-idiomatic code. As soon as you see NOT , you have to go and look
to see what version of NOT is meant; you don't have that problem with
0= . If NOT were standard, you wouldn't have the problem with NOT
either.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jne9la$b67$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11114 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > >> > Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> >> In article <2012Mar26.110424@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, > >> >> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> >> >"Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> writes: > >> >> >>Although I would > >> >> >>have a significant problem with NOT due to its history. > >> >> > > >> >> >In theory, after some time of de-standardization of NOT that name > >> >> >should have cooled down enough that we should be able to give it a new > >> >> >standard meaning. > >> >> > > >> >> >In practice, the last time it was discussed, it turned out that some > >> >> >people thing that NOT should be INVERT and some people think that NOT > >> >> >should be 0=, so I doubt that we will reach a consensus even if > >> >> >someone makes a proposal. > >> >> > >> >> NOT clearly is a logical transformation, so it should yield > >> >> a well-formed flag. Are there really people who think otherwise? > >> > > >> > Yes, me for instance. The main reason is consistency across the logical > >> > operations. It would be strange to accept AND, OR and XOR as bitwise > >> > operations without expecting NOT to do likewise. > >> > >> Mmm, I get that, but it's a very theoretical objection. Surely the > >> ability to say NOT IF is far more important. We already have INVERT . > > > > Well, we also already have 0=. I agree that the phrase NOT IF is > > useful and would like to see NOT reintroduced, although I can live with > > having two distinct words INVERT and 0= in order to avoid confusion. > > But I do not quite see why this should force NOT to have the behaviour > > of 0= instead of INVERT, and my above point was just that considering > > NOT as logical operator does not in any prohibit this. > > > > On the contrary, I would find it outright confusing if NOT did not > > operate bitwise just as AND and OR; and certainly the "principle of > > least surprise" is a quite practical one. > > Surely the principle of least surprise says that "NOT IF" should do > something if and only if the condition is not true, i.e. all bits > zero. Well, in this respect my expectations are more modest. I expect that NOT interchanges TRUE and FALSE. Both possible interpretations (as INVERT or as 0=) do this. On the other hand there is the expectation of consistent behaviour of AND, OR and NOT. I wonder if those who prefer : NOT 0= ; would likewise prefer : AND IF IF TRUE ELSE FALSE THEN THEN ; If Forth had separate words for bitwise operations and for working exclusively with TRUE/FALSE it would be different. But I guess that Elizabeth is just right, it is not easy to come to an agreement here. > > > The important requirement for logical operators like NOT, AND or OR > > is not that they *produce* well formed flags regardless of the > > input, but that they *preserve* well formed flags. Those operations > > that must always produce well formed flags are relational operations > > like = , <> , 0= , 0<> etc.. > > > > But let's return to the example with NOT IF to see whether there is > > a problem at all. There are two possibilities: > > > > (a) The previously produced TOS is a well formed flag. Then NOT will > > preserve this wff, whether it behaves as INVERT or as 0=. > > Agreed. > > > (b) The previously produced TOS is some computed number and most likely > > not a well formed flag. Then I would indeed prefer to use 0= IF instead > > of NOT IF because the former is exactly what I am doing: I test if the > > TOS is equal to 0. Moreover, if I later look at the code 0= IF will > > remind me that the previously computated TOS is perhaps not a well formed > > flag. > > > > So basically, a NOT with behaviour of 0= would only make a difference in > > those situations where I would prefer to use the more informative 0= > > anyway. Hence my preference for a NOT with the behaviour of INVERT. > > I wonder if this is an "English as a first language" thing? :-) As > Elizabeth said, NOT was invented precisely to allow you to say NOT IF, > and this is just to make the code easier to read than 0= IF . I doubt that NOT IF is always easier to read than 0= IF . After all, 0= is just a contraction of 0 = in the same way as 1+ is a contraction of 1 + . So if the purpose of the code is simply to perform some action if the TOS is 0, then I prefer 0= IF because it describes exactly what the code is supposed to do. So even if NOT IF gave the same result, I would find it misleading. For the same reason I would also use 0<> IF instead of IF just for the sake of making the meaning of the code explicit. To avoid possible misunderstanding let me state that I see the benefits of NOT IF. I have nothing against NOT IF and would use NOT IF whenever I deal with TRUE/FALSE , but not if I want to do something different. To give an extreme example I would not want to use - NOT IF instead of = IF, and neither would you, I guess. -- Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-27 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7f03522-9d5b-41f3-bea7-3f8fbcb4f157@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11688 |
On Apr 27, 10:15 am, Marc Olschok <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > To avoid possible misunderstanding let me state that I see the benefits > of NOT IF. I have nothing against NOT IF and would use NOT IF whenever > I deal with TRUE/FALSE , but not if I want to do something different. > To give an extreme example I would not want to use - NOT IF instead > of = IF, and neither would you, I guess. There is also the common case of ( value | FALSE ), for linked list next item entries, for string lengths, for return status. Some people would find: ... error? NOT IF ... ... or: ... next-item NOT IF ... ... expressive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-27 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a00ootF2doU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #11701 |
BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote: > There is also the common case of ( value | FALSE ), for linked list > next item entries, for string lengths, for return status. Whenever I try to use that technique, I end up being hosed by the "value" ending up needing to be 0. I always now use ( value TRUE | FALSE ). Even when I am "sure" value can never be 0.... -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-27 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe279720-3829-40ce-af3a-50285252ae83@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11702 |
On Apr 27, 7:34 pm, van...@vsta.org wrote: > BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > > There is also the common case of ( value | FALSE ), for linked list > > next item entries, for string lengths, for return status. > Whenever I try to use that technique, I end up being hosed by the "value" > ending up needing to be 0. I always now use ( value TRUE | FALSE ). > Even when I am "sure" value can never be 0.... For a return status, a return status of 0 is one of the defined values, the defined value which means "AOK, nothing to worry about here". For string lengths, the length of 0 is intrinsically a special case. The famously tricky one is null address as 0 ~ when I first started programming, it was on a processor where there was a special input/ output register at $0000 and directional control bits at $0001, but on a system where the address 0 is in the middle of the address space, that one would indeed have to be modified to: ... ( addr ) null-addr? IF ... Normally, though, if I can shoot myself in the foot with it, I shoot myself in the foot soon enough to fix the broken logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 04:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j9adnSdqU_VJKQbSnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11688 |
Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >> >> Surely the principle of least surprise says that "NOT IF" should do >> something if and only if the condition is not true, i.e. all bits >> zero. > > Well, in this respect my expectations are more modest. I expect that > NOT interchanges TRUE and FALSE. Both possible interpretations (as > INVERT or as 0=) do this. On the other hand there is the expectation > of consistent behaviour of AND, OR and NOT. I think that's the core of our disagreement. I simply don't have any such expectation, so the issue does not arise for me. I wonder if this has anything to do with vocalization: I pronounce C's ! as "not" and C's ~ as "twiddle". But then I learnt Forth's NOT long before C's ! . > To avoid possible misunderstanding let me state that I see the > benefits of NOT IF. I have nothing against NOT IF and would use NOT > IF whenever I deal with TRUE/FALSE , but not if I want to do > something different. To give an extreme example I would not want to > use - NOT IF instead of = IF, and neither would you, I guess. I wouldn't use two words where one would do, certainly. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slrnjpp1pk.7ar.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| In reply to | #11688 |
In comp.lang.forth, Marc Olschok wrote: > Well, in this respect my expectations are more modest. I expect that > NOT interchanges TRUE and FALSE. Both possible interpretations (as INVERT > or as 0=) do this. On the other hand there is the expectation of consistent > behaviour of AND, OR and NOT. It's simple: NOT is another logical operation - and since AND, OR are "bitwise", then NOT should work "bitwise" as well, just to keep consistency. -- Forth is a preserver of health (Hippocrates)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 12:53 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <9aidncJPmZdN6QHSnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11722 |
On 4/28/12 1:10 PM, Zbiggy wrote: > In comp.lang.forth, Marc Olschok wrote: > >> Well, in this respect my expectations are more modest. I expect that >> NOT interchanges TRUE and FALSE. Both possible interpretations (as INVERT >> or as 0=) do this. On the other hand there is the expectation of consistent >> behaviour of AND, OR and NOT. > > It's simple: NOT is another logical operation - and since AND, OR are > "bitwise", then NOT should work "bitwise" as well, just to keep consistency. Yeah, well, the arguments in this controversy are all simple. Yours is one POV. The other is: It's simple: NOT is intended primarily as a precursor to IF, to reverse the "truth" of the argument. INVERT is available for situations needing a bitwise operator. 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 | Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 01:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slrnjpp531.7ra.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| In reply to | #11723 |
In comp.lang.forth, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Yeah, well, the arguments in this controversy are all simple. Yours is > one POV. The other is: > > It's simple: NOT is intended primarily as a precursor to IF, to reverse > the "truth" of the argument. INVERT is available for situations needing > a bitwise operator. While I agree about existence - and functionality - of INVERT, still NOT is logical operation like OR and AND (that are "bitwise"), therefore it should be just kind of "alias" for INVERT, to keep consistency. Why some logical operations should work "bitwise", and the others not? Actually no idea, why somebody "invented" INVERT, and not just NOT. -- Forth is a preserver of health (Hippocrates)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-28 13:43 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <p_adnUjVPr4BHQHSnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11724 |
On 4/28/12 2:06 PM, Zbiggy wrote: > In comp.lang.forth, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> Yeah, well, the arguments in this controversy are all simple. Yours is >> one POV. The other is: >> >> It's simple: NOT is intended primarily as a precursor to IF, to reverse >> the "truth" of the argument. INVERT is available for situations needing >> a bitwise operator. > > While I agree about existence - and functionality - of INVERT, still NOT is > logical operation like OR and AND (that are "bitwise"), therefore it should > be just kind of "alias" for INVERT, to keep consistency. Why some logical > operations should work "bitwise", and the others not? > > Actually no idea, why somebody "invented" INVERT, and not just NOT. See, this is why it can never be resolved, because the whole issue is how people *think* about this operator: a precursor to IF, UNTIL and WHILE, or a logical operation. Both viewpoints are equally valid in a technical sense, both senses have a lot of history, and it's hard to take a poll of the entire Forth community. 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 | Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 11:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slrnjpq96v.3br.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| In reply to | #11727 |
In comp.lang.forth, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > See, this is why it can never be resolved, because the whole issue is > how people *think* about this operator: a precursor to IF, UNTIL and > WHILE, or a logical operation. Both viewpoints are equally valid in a > technical sense, both senses have a lot of history, and it's hard to > take a poll of the entire Forth community. Then maybe better would be to leave it in present state - with 0= and INVERT - than to introduce confusion? -- Forth is a preserver of health (Hippocrates)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web