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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 12:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6996a18d-df56-44c6-9a1c-ca31e7b85c30@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7793 |
On Dec 7, 1:21 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > BruceMcF wrote: > > It might be cool, but as soon as you create more than one self- > > counting counted string constant, its more convenient to: > > > : does-count DOES> count ; > > > CREATE it's-really-useful-to-have? " an interpreted does>" $, does- > > count > > > ... or: > > > CREATE it's-really-useful-to-have? does-count > > " an interpreted does>" $, > > > ... where: > > CREATE it's-really-useful-to-have? does> COUNT ; > > " an interpreted does>" $, > > ... cannot be done with "an interpreted does>" unless compile space > > and data space are separate, because of the impact on the dictionary. > Well, I may just be a bit of rewriting, but this works: > : S, > here over 1+ allot place align ; ok > create myomy s" This is my string" s, does> count type ; ok > myomy This is my string ok Yes, if interpreted DOES> words, then that word ... but that's not the point I was trying to make. The *point* of putting the modification right after the word has been created is that you *can* do it if you it the long-established ordinary way, while with an interpreted DOES> you are *constrained* to putting it after you are done with the dataspace associated with the CREATEd word. As to why, it could be because the dataspace set-up is starting to get more complicated, and you don't want to hide the setting of the word action until after a complex structure has been defined, or you've passed a string through a macro generator, or etc. Its not that there's a pressing need to do it that way *all the time*, but that doing it the normal way, you always have the *option* of placing it where you think its clearer to someone reading the code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 09:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jboqve$q51$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7764 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> writes: > ... > >If there are advanced uses, they are conspicuous by their absence. > > You are always quick to claim that things don't exist that have > existed for a long time. I assume you have some examples. Bring them on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 12:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Dec8.133733@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #7802 |
"Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> writes:
>> ...
>> >If there are advanced uses, they are conspicuous by their absence.
>>
>> You are always quick to claim that things don't exist that have
>> existed for a long time.
>
>I assume you have some examples. Bring them on.
1) The Hayes tests.
2) <http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/struct.fs> contains this
code:
: dofield ( -- )
does> ( name execution: addr1 -- addr2 )
@ + ;
: dozerofield ( -- )
immediate
does> ( name execution: -- )
drop ;
: create-field ( align1 offset1 align size "name" -- align2 offset2 )
create swap rot over nalign dup , ( align1 size align offset )
rot + >r nalign r> ;
: field ( align1 offset1 align size "name" -- align2 offset2 )
\ name execution: addr1 -- addr2
2 pick >r \ this uglyness is just for optimizing with dozerofield
create-field
r> if \ offset<>0
dofield
else
dozerofield
then ;
- 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 | "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 19:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jbjmi0$481$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7712 |
3wOn 12/3/11 7:22 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "BruceMcF"<agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:688f3314-6aec-467a-9418-1ca132d57577@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> On Dec 3, 3:56 am, "Ed"<nos...@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>> Now folks want to reverse-engineer the spec - which was only ever >>> meant to document the syntax - and use it to extract some "legal" >>> usage based on their interpretation. >> >> That's a fine theory, but under the original CREATE DOES> what you are >> calling "reverse engineering the spec" *already* worked for (assuming >> IF/THEN works in interpret, as it did for some implementations): > > If there were a set of test(s) that confirmed "standard behavior" and > "typical behavior" for CREATE DOES>, then I doubt implementors would be > having these problems. Got any? Don't the usual Hayes core tests qualify? They even include "weird" behavior for DOES>. -- David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-08 11:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jbovjc$sh1$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7739 |
David N. Williams wrote: > 3wOn 12/3/11 7:22 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > ... > > If there were a set of test(s) that confirmed "standard behavior" and > > "typical behavior" for CREATE DOES>, then I doubt implementors would be > > having these problems. Got any? > > Don't the usual Hayes core tests qualify? They even include > "weird" behavior for DOES>. So it DOES> In fact *all* the Hayes DOES> tests are weird. There is not a single test which tests : x <create> ... DOES> ... ; Very strange.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-07 18:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a958a95c-0621-49bb-b407-e6156a79a56a@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7809 |
On Dec 7, 7:16 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > In fact *all* the Hayes DOES> tests are weird. There is not a single > test which tests : x <create> ... DOES> ... ; But if the most recent definition was made by CREATE, and it has its behavior correctly modified by DOES> when the word containing DOES> is executed, what *difference* does it make if the CREATE was executed in the same definition, in a different definition, or directly executed in the command interpreter? There is absolutely no reason why factoring ought to break the correct execution behavior of DOES>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lw028o.4mw@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #7818 |
In article <a958a95c-0621-49bb-b407-e6156a79a56a@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote: >On Dec 7, 7:16=A0pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: >> In fact *all* the Hayes DOES> tests are weird. =A0There is not a single >> test which tests =A0 : x =A0<create> ... DOES> =A0... =A0; > >But if the most recent definition was made by CREATE, and it has its >behavior correctly modified by DOES> when the word containing DOES> is >executed, what *difference* does it make if the CREATE was executed in >the same definition, in a different definition, or directly executed >in the command interpreter? > >There is absolutely no reason why factoring ought to break the correct >execution behavior of DOES> Yes there is. The semicolon that ends a definition is not the same semicolon that ends a DOES> part. A more sensible syntax would be : test CREATE ... DOES> ... ;D ... ; Now it is reasonable to say that factoring should not break this code as long as the part factored out contains DOES> ... ;D as a whole. That nobody wonders is a testimony to the weirdness of Forth. Or (more specific): Would you factor out `` DOES> 1 2 '' in : test CREATE 5 4 DOES> 1 2 3 7 ; : poo-money DOES> 1 2 ; : test CREATE 5 4 poo-money 3 7 ; 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 | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 09:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <128ec4ee-aca0-4f6a-8244-ef9a074c0333@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7897 |
On Dec 10, 1:05 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <a958a95c-0621-49bb- b407-e6156a79a...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > >There is absolutely no reason why factoring ought to break the correct > >execution behavior of DOES> > Yes there is. The semicolon that ends a definition is not the > same semicolon that ends a DOES> part. > A more sensible syntax would be > : test CREATE ... DOES> ... ;D ... ; What does the statement mean? "The semicolon that ends a definition is not the same semicolon that ends a DOES> part." If that is a Forth94 DOES> then I don't follow how that section following ;D is ever executed ... when DOES> is executed, it sets the most recently defined word to perform the following compiles words, then exits the word in which it is contained. If ;D is ... : ;D POSTPONE ; POSTPONE [ ; ... then the stuff after ;D will compile, but there will be no way to execute it. > > Now it is reasonable to say that factoring should not > break this code as long as the part factored out > contains DOES> ... ;D as a whole. > > That nobody wonders is a testimony to the weirdness of Forth. > > Or (more specific): > > Would you factor out `` DOES> 1 2 '' in > : test CREATE 5 4 DOES> 1 2 3 7 ; > > : poo-money DOES> 1 2 ; > : test CREATE 5 4 poo-money 3 7 ; > > Groetjes Albert > > -- > -- > Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS > Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. > albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=nhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-10 11:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59945cb4-7d9b-4155-bd65-ae3fb49d897b@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7897 |
On Dec 10, 1:05 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <a958a95c-0621-49bb-b407-e6156a79a...@y18g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, > > BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > >On Dec 7, 7:16=A0pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > >> In fact *all* the Hayes DOES> tests are weird. =A0There is not a single > >> test which tests =A0 : x =A0<create> ... DOES> =A0... =A0; > > >But if the most recent definition was made by CREATE, and it has its > >behavior correctly modified by DOES> when the word containing DOES> is > >executed, what *difference* does it make if the CREATE was executed in > >the same definition, in a different definition, or directly executed > >in the command interpreter? > > >There is absolutely no reason why factoring ought to break the correct > >execution behavior of DOES> > > Yes there is. The semicolon that ends a definition is not the > same semicolon that ends a DOES> part. > A more sensible syntax would be > : test CREATE ... DOES> ... ;D ... ; That doesn't make sense... The part after ;D ? Is it part of TEST or the DOES> ? > > Now it is reasonable to say that factoring should not > break this code as long as the part factored out > contains DOES> ... ;D as a whole. > > That nobody wonders is a testimony to the weirdness of Forth. > > Or (more specific): > > Would you factor out `` DOES> 1 2 '' in > : test CREATE 5 4 DOES> 1 2 3 7 ; > > : poo-money DOES> 1 2 ; > : test CREATE 5 4 poo-money 3 7 ; > > Groetjes Albert > > -- > -- > Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS > Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. > albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=nhttp://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 11:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Dec11.121916@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #7897 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>The semicolon that ends a definition is not the
>same semicolon that ends a DOES> part.
But it is.
>A more sensible syntax would be
>: test CREATE ... DOES> ... ;D ... ;
>
>Now it is reasonable to say that factoring should not
>break this code as long as the part factored out
>contains DOES> ... ;D as a whole.
>
>That nobody wonders is a testimony to the weirdness of Forth.
>
>Or (more specific):
>
>Would you factor out `` DOES> 1 2 '' in
>: test CREATE 5 4 DOES> 1 2 3 7 ;
>
>: poo-money DOES> 1 2 ;
>: test CREATE 5 4 poo-money 3 7 ;
Now let's do it with your syntax:
: test CREATE 5 4 DOES> 1 2 3 7 ;D ;
: poo-money DOES> 1 2 ;
: test CREATE 5 4 poo-money 3 7 ;D ;
I guess that would not work, either, as you mentioned in your restriction
|as long as the part factored out
|contains DOES> ... ;D as a whole.
earlier.
So, yes, I Forth you cannot just take any subsequence of words and
turn it into a factor; that works for straight-line code without
locals and return-stack usage, but as soon as control flow, the return
stack, or locals come into play, the rules become more complicated.
And DOES> has to do with control flow, so it should not be surprising
that there are factoring restrictions when DOES> is involved.
- 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 | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lw265z.3d5@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #7935 |
In article <2011Dec11.121916@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes: >>The semicolon that ends a definition is not the >>same semicolon that ends a DOES> part. > >But it is. > >>A more sensible syntax would be >>: test CREATE ... DOES> ... ;D ... ; >> >>Now it is reasonable to say that factoring should not >>break this code as long as the part factored out >>contains DOES> ... ;D as a whole. >> >>That nobody wonders is a testimony to the weirdness of Forth. >> >>Or (more specific): >> >>Would you factor out `` DOES> 1 2 '' in >>: test CREATE 5 4 DOES> 1 2 3 7 ; >> >>: poo-money DOES> 1 2 ; >>: test CREATE 5 4 poo-money 3 7 ; > >Now let's do it with your syntax: > >: test CREATE 5 4 DOES> 1 2 3 7 ;D ; >: poo-money DOES> 1 2 ; >: test CREATE 5 4 poo-money 3 7 ;D ; > >I guess that would not work, either, as you mentioned in your restriction > >|as long as the part factored out >|contains DOES> ... ;D as a whole. > >earlier. > >So, yes, I Forth you cannot just take any subsequence of words and >turn it into a factor; that works for straight-line code without >locals and return-stack usage, but as soon as control flow, the return >stack, or locals come into play, the rules become more complicated. >And DOES> has to do with control flow, so it should not be surprising >that there are factoring restrictions when DOES> is involved. DOES> is not control flow. It is a warp out of compilation into metacompilation time. > >- 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/ -- -- 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 | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-11 13:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a38549e-e04f-41c9-b56e-2b85d5ca234e@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7948 |
On Dec 11, 4:25 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > DOES> is not control flow. It is a warp out of > compilation into metacompilation time. But at runtime of the word containing ``DOES>'', execution exits the word containing ``DOES>'' at the point that ``DOES>'' occurs. ``DOES>'' could just as well be called ``;DOES>''. : <name> ( x*i -- x*j ) CREATE <something1> ;DOES> <something2> ; ... means control flow leaves the <name> after <something1> and *also* the word defined by CREATE takes on behavior <something2>. : <name> ;DOES> <something> ; ... just means that <name> is a no-op at execution time *apart from* resetting the behavior of the most recent definition to <do- something>. Discussion about what arbitrary factoring can be done is neither here nor there. The fact is that the standard behavior of DOES> allows factoring when there are certain types of overlap. : <name1> CREATE <structure1> DOES> <something1> ; : <name2> CREATE <structure1> DOES> <something2> ; : <name3> CREATE <structure1> DOES> <something3> ; : <name4> CREATE <structure1> DOES> <something4> ; : <name5> CREATE <structure2> DOES> <something1> ; : <name6> CREATE <structure2> DOES> <something2> ; : <name7> CREATE <structure2> DOES> <something3> ; : <name8> CREATE <structure2> DOES> <something4> ; : <name9> CREATE <structure3> DOES> <something1> ; : <name10> CREATE <structure3> DOES> <something2> ; : <name11> CREATE <structure3> DOES> <something3> ; : <name12> CREATE <structure3> DOES> <something4> ; ... can be factored as: : <name1> CREATE <structure1> DOES> <something1> ; : <name2> CREATE <structure2> DOES> <something1> ; : <name3> CREATE <structure3> DOES> <something1> ; : does-something2 DOES> <something2> ; : does-something3 DOES> <something3> ; : does-something4 DOES> <something4> ; I've got some defining words that drop a counted string address on the stack. I want to re-use them, but generate an ca,u string descriptor, or copy the string onto the string stack, or it into a workspace block. Just re-use them, then over-ride the DOES> behavior. That works, and it works entirely independent of the question of what *arbitrary* factorings are possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Dec12.133533@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #7948 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>>So, yes, [in] Forth you cannot just take any subsequence of words and
>>turn it into a factor; that works for straight-line code without
>>locals and return-stack usage, but as soon as control flow, the return
>>stack, or locals come into play, the rules become more complicated.
>>And DOES> has to do with control flow, so it should not be surprising
>>that there are factoring restrictions when DOES> is involved.
>
>DOES> is not control flow.
|6.1.1250 DOES>
|[...]
|Return control to the calling definition specified by nest-sys1.
It is. In particular, in the context of factoring.
- 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 | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 11:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dcc68b9d-311c-4026-a813-647b07f33b47@s4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7620 |
On Nov 30, 12:14 am, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: > > On Nov 29, 5:49 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote: > > > On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote: > > > > > But should be is: > > > > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output > > > > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ; > > > > You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE: > > > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > > > does CORE > > > ... > > > An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > > > user-defined word that calls CREATE. > > > You missed what followed? > > > CREATE .B ( n -- ) 2 C, .rno > > ^^^^^^ > > .RNO didn't CREATE the current definition so all bets are off. > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > ... > Compilation: ( C: colon-sys1 -- colon-sys2 ) > > Append the run-time semantics below to the current definition. ... The bit you missed is; Run-time: ( --) ( R: nest-sys1 --) Replace the execution semantics of the *** most recent definition ***, referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. Return control to the calling definition specified by nest-sys1. An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with *** CREATE or a user-defined word that calls CREATE ***. (My emphasis) That makes all the following valid; : x create , does> @ ; : doesbit does> @ ; : x create , doesbit ; : x create , does> @ does> @ 1+ ; : doubledoes does> @ does> @ 1+ ; : x create , doubledoes ; : createbit create , ; : doesbit does> @ ; : x createbit doesbit ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 13:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jb9egf$q9b$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7675 |
Alex McDonald wrote:
> On Nov 30, 12:14Ā am, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote:
> > Alex McDonald wrote:
> > > On Nov 29, 5:49 am, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote:
> >
> > > > > But should be is:
> >
> > > > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output
> > > > > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ;
> >
> > > > You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE:
> >
> > > > 6.1.1250 DOES>
> > > > does CORE
> > > > ...
> > > > An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a
> > > > user-defined word that calls CREATE.
> >
> > > You missed what followed?
> >
> > > CREATE .B ( n -- ) Ā 2 C, .rno
> > > ^^^^^^
> >
> > .RNO Ā didn't CREATE the current definition so all bets are off.
> >
> > Ā Ā 6.1.1250 DOES>
> > Ā Ā ...
> > Ā Ā Compilation: ( C: colon-sys1 -- colon-sys2 )
> >
> > Ā Ā Append the run-time semantics below to the current definition. ...
>
> The bit you missed is;
>
> ļ»æRun-time: ( --) ( R: nest-sys1 --)
> Replace the execution semantics of the *** most recent definition ***,
> referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below.
> Return control to the calling definition specified by nest-sys1. An
> ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with *** CREATE or
> a user-defined word that calls CREATE ***.
>
> (My emphasis) That makes all the following valid;
>
> : x create , does> @ ;
Yes. It's a defining word in the classic form.
> : doesbit does> @ ;
> : x create , doesbit ;
>
> : x create , does> @ does> @ 1+ ;
>
> : doubledoes does> @ does> @ 1+ ;
> : x create , doubledoes ;
>
> : createbit create , ;
> : doesbit does> @ ;
> : x createbit doesbit ;
IMO most if not all these are suspect as they don't follow that
specified in Forth-79/83 DOES>
: <namex> ... <create> ... DOES> ... ;
i.e. there is one <create> and one DOES> and both words
appear in the body of the definer. Forth-94 hasn't contradicted
this, nor did they signal an intent to vary it AFAIK.
If there is something to be gained in the examples shown,
I'm failing to see it. If there is benefit, then have it explicitly
written into 200x and no-one will be confused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 21:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1607737-cdba-4c4e-b4fb-558475cce2b1@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7676 |
On Dec 1, 9:52 pm, "Ed" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote: > If there is something to be gained in the examples shown, > I'm failing to see it. If there is benefit, then have it explicitly > written into 200x and no-one will be confused. It was explicitly written into Forth94, and that is not enough to prevent the confusion. Indeed, what relevance is it whether or not you see the benefit? The fact is that the specification *spells out* what DOES> does, and as DOES> is specified, then the following is supported by a standard- compliant DOES> \ Self-pushing wordlist :noname ( o: -- wid ) DOES> @ >R GET-ORDER R> SWAP 1+ SET-ORDER ; \ []niclos is only word added to original compilation wordlist WORDLIST CREATE []niclos , DUP EXECUTE GET-CURRENT []niclos DEFINITIONS \ ... ... and its supported by a standard compliant DOES> whether or not you think there is any *benefit* from *doing* that. The discussion of whether the rationale for a 200x proposal is one thing, but the issue here is something that was already decided on and specified in Forth94. Whether or not there *was* a benefit resulting from whomever it was who won *whatever* argument there was for specifying it that way, is now very much water under the bridge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jb3q8r$o9$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7591 |
A. K. wrote: > On 29.11.2011 04:18, Bee wrote: > > But should be is: > > > > : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output > > DOES> C@ BASE @>R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ; > > You are making a silent assumption here that DOES> works without CREATE: > > 6.1.1250 DOES> > does CORE > ... > An ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE. Perhaps so but is there a classic/conventional forth where it wouldn't work? The question for me would be whether or not this factoring had advantages over usual methods (?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jb3q8s$o9$2@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7589 |
Bee wrote:
> ...
> No that is not portable.
> But should be is:
>
> : .rno ( -- ) \ Radix Number Output
> DOES> C@ BASE @ >R BASE ! U. R> BASE ! ;
>
> CREATE .B ( n -- ) 2 C, .rno
> CREATE .O ( n -- ) 8 C, .rno
> CREATE .D ( n -- ) 10 C, .rno
> CREATE .H ( n -- ) 16 C, .rno
Interesting factoring!
For reasons peculiar to my forth I've added an alternative to
CREATE DOES> called BUILD which works as follows:
: CONSTANT ['] @ BUILD , ;
23 CONSTANT test ok
test . 23 ok
Applying your factoring technique to BUILD we get:
:noname ( adr -- ) \ Radix Number Output
c@ base @ >r base ! u. r> base ! ; ok
( xt)
dup build .B 2 c, ok
dup build .O 8 c, ok
dup build .D 10 c, ok
build .H 16 c, ok
23 .b 10111 ok
23 .o 27 ok
23 .h 17 ok
I always thought BUILD required named words for the run-time part.
Your example has shown me how to use unnamed words with BUILD.
Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 18:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jb21ji$3kl$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au> |
| In reply to | #7583 |
Hans Bezemer wrote:
> 6.1.1250 DOES>
> "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition,
> referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An
> ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a
> user-defined word that calls CREATE."
>
> So this is valid AND portable:
> ...
IMO if it looks wrong i.e. it doesn't conform to any known "common
practice" then it should not be counted on - regardless of what the
wording of the Standard might be interpreted to allow.
Standards seek to define common practice - not quirky practice.
Unless stated otherwise it's reasonable to assume the TC's
wording was limited to reflecting existing/traditional practice.
Is there ever a case for interpreting the Standard in a way the
authors had likely *not* intended? I can think of two instances.
1) the TC was dealing with new/unproven concepts and bungled it
2) the definition can be interpreted in a way that adds facility while
maintaining traditional practice
Would your examples fit the latter?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-28 22:09 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <iJSdnZjrysjfDknTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #7583 |
On 11/28/11 1:18 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > 6.1.1250 DOES> > "Replace the execution semantics of the most recent definition, > referred to as name, with the name execution semantics given below. An > ambiguous condition exists if name was not defined with CREATE or a > user-defined word that calls CREATE." > > So this is valid AND portable: > > Type `bye' to exit > : array create cells allot ; ok > 16 array myarray ok > myarray . -1213636248 ok > does> swap cells + ; ok > 0 myarray . -1213636248 ok > 1 myarray . -1213636244 ok > 16 0 myarray ! ok > 32 1 myarray ! ok > 0 myarray ? 16 ok > 1 myarray ? 32 ok > > Or is it? > > Hans Bezemer There are several issues here, some of which have been pointed out, but to clarify: 1. The thing being modified must have been defined by CREATE (because not all defining words leave an appropriately modifiable structure). 2. DOES> "has no interpretation semantics" means the usage above isn't appropriate. It is intended to be the second part of a two-part colon definition. The fact that this appears to have worked above means that this particular implementation leaves a CREATEd word structured in such a way that new semantics can be attached to it. But DOES> is intended to create a new *defining word* that can be used to create new definitions of the same class. The above usage managed to modify the definition myarray, but that is a single definition that cannot be used to make new definitions with that behavior. It did not make array into a new defining word with the desired indexing behavior, so even though it appeared to do something appropriate with myarray, it didn't fulfill the purpose for which DOES> exists. And, most assuredly, other systems will not allow this to work. So, the fact that DOES> was used interpretively means it is both non-standard and non-portable. 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]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web