Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8896 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-01-16 04:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2012-01-22 11:03 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 04:36 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 05:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 05:34 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 05:10 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 05:41 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 06:06 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 14:30 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-01-16 07:04 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 15:21 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 08:48 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-16 09:28 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 10:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Bruce.McFarling" <bruce.mcfarling@gmail.com> - 2012-01-16 13:07 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 13:59 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 06:49 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 15:28 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 12:02 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-18 14:10 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-18 12:55 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-18 17:36 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 03:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:21 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 14:48 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 09:13 -0800
How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 17:16 +0000
Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 09:45 -0800
Re: How to represent the compilation semantics (was: Why no ...) BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 09:50 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 09:47 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 12:24 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-19 13:02 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:44 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 14:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-16 22:20 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-16 14:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-16 17:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 10:39 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-01-16 12:27 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-16 20:12 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2012-01-19 06:00 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 17:32 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 18:55 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 11:06 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 03:39 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 16:48 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:15 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-20 09:51 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-23 12:25 +0000
RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 09:25 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 09:56 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-23 12:10 -0600
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 11:13 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-23 13:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 13:39 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-23 14:47 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 17:00 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-23 17:21 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 17:40 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-23 15:07 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 16:57 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-02-07 20:43 +0100
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-07 14:47 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-02-07 13:14 -1000
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-08 18:00 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-08 19:30 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 15:17 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-08 18:07 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-08 19:20 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-09 01:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 10:34 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2012-01-23 22:15 +0400
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 10:43 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2012-01-24 10:09 +0400
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 22:19 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-24 10:11 +0000
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-24 06:53 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-24 10:42 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-24 11:56 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-23 13:04 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 13:14 -0800
Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-25 07:16 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-23 22:13 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-30 16:35 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-30 10:25 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-30 10:43 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-30 12:01 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-01-30 12:48 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 11:26 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 07:50 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 16:00 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 08:31 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 10:05 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 10:18 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 08:42 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 10:48 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 17:03 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:00 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-01 16:08 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 12:06 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-02 12:40 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-02 08:41 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-02 08:34 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-02 15:55 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-02 11:20 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-03 15:12 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-03 10:33 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-03 16:48 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2012-02-03 08:07 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 09:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:05 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 10:33 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 16:50 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 11:07 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 09:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:09 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 09:29 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-31 12:17 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-31 11:01 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 04:11 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 06:27 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-02-01 11:32 -0600
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 10:32 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-01 11:03 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-02-01 20:34 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-01 12:36 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-31 11:09 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-03 12:53 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-03 19:04 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 04:03 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 12:15 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-05 14:28 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-05 17:00 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 04:23 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-02-04 11:37 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 11:58 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 12:26 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 04:27 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 15:06 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-04 16:30 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 13:19 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-04 14:55 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-04 19:13 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-05 05:35 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-07 11:55 +0000
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 11:29 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-02-07 14:53 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-02-07 15:18 -0800
Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-02-05 05:51 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-24 09:21 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 05:35 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 16:41 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-16 10:32 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-17 07:35 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-17 10:08 -0600
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-18 00:42 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 13:53 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-18 07:24 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-18 21:27 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-20 00:01 +0100
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 16:03 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 02:19 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:46 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 07:56 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 08:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 12:28 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 08:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-20 11:23 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-19 03:10 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 03:08 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 05:50 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-19 06:16 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 07:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-20 13:10 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-19 17:50 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-19 13:48 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-19 17:37 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-01-19 18:14 -1000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:48 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:13 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 12:22 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-19 15:56 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-20 05:52 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-20 06:52 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-21 15:45 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 13:58 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-21 21:15 -0500
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 18:45 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-20 03:29 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-20 10:11 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-20 18:43 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-01-21 08:45 +0200
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-21 12:37 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-21 17:22 -0800
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-01-22 18:31 +0000
Re: Why no standard words for traversing a wordlist? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-22 11:03 -0800
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-04 15:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <d968be22-c1aa-4102-b8cc-d10febc51a1e@k28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9387 |
On Feb 4, 12:27 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Feb 3, 3:53 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 2.2 Opaque NTs > > -------------- > > > Since this proposal introduces the concept of an opaque nt (name > > token), the following words allow system independent reference to > > specific parts of the node. > > NAME>STRING ( nt -- addr count ) "name-to-string" > > NAME>SEMANTICS ( nt -- xte xtc ) "name-to-semantics" > > NAME>STRING returns the string addr count, the definition name of > > the word represented by nt. Case is dependent on the > > case-sensitivity of the Forth system > > (see /DPANS 3.3.1.2 Definition names/). > > > NAME>SEMANTICS returns two xts (execution tokens) as discussed in > > /DPANS 3.4.3 Semantics/. xte represents the execution semantics of > > the definition; xtc represents the compilation semantics. Where a > > definition has no execution semantics (for example, IF), xte may > > be 0 (zero); the same is true for xtc if there are no compilation > > semantics. > > "xtc" has been discussed several times in the past ~ a commonly > expressed view is that the most appropriate generic approach is for it > to take xte as a parameter. Then simple implements can return either > the xt for COMPILE, for ordinary words and the xt for EXECUTE for > immediate words, while more complex implementations have the freedom > to do whatever crazy thing they want to do. > > Edit: > > > > > > > > > ... xtc represents the compilation semantics, and > > takes xte as a stack parameter. ... I may also correct your name in the next round... my apologies ;-) This struck me as I was writing it as opening up a whole can of worms. However, if that's the case, perhaps the discussion of an opaque nt needs to come first, and in a separate proposal?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-04 16:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <372b1aff-279a-4e55-b2cc-cc97933a6233@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9396 |
On Feb 4, 6:06 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 12:27 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 3:53 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > 2.2 Opaque NTs > > > -------------- > > > > Since this proposal introduces the concept of an opaque nt (name > > > token), the following words allow system independent reference to > > > specific parts of the node. > > > NAME>STRING ( nt -- addr count ) "name-to-string" > > > NAME>SEMANTICS ( nt -- xte xtc ) "name-to-semantics" > > > NAME>STRING returns the string addr count, the definition name of > > > the word represented by nt. Case is dependent on the > > > case-sensitivity of the Forth system > > > (see /DPANS 3.3.1.2 Definition names/). > > > > NAME>SEMANTICS returns two xts (execution tokens) as discussed in > > > /DPANS 3.4.3 Semantics/. xte represents the execution semantics of > > > the definition; xtc represents the compilation semantics. Where a > > > definition has no execution semantics (for example, IF), xte may > > > be 0 (zero); the same is true for xtc if there are no compilation > > > semantics. > > > "xtc" has been discussed several times in the past ~ a commonly > > expressed view is that the most appropriate generic approach is for it > > to take xte as a parameter. Then simple implements can return either > > the xt for COMPILE, for ordinary words and the xt for EXECUTE for > > immediate words, while more complex implementations have the freedom > > to do whatever crazy thing they want to do. > > > Edit: > > > > ... xtc represents the compilation semantics, and > > > takes xte as a stack parameter. ... > > I may also correct your name in the next round... my apologies ;-) > > This struck me as I was writing it as opening up a whole can of worms. > However, if that's the case, perhaps the discussion of an opaque nt > needs to come first, and in a separate proposal? This is part of why I suggested (setting aside names, the focus of my remark is on semantics) something along the lines of: NT>NAME ( nt -- ca u ) NT>EXECUTE ( nt -- xt ) NT>COMPILE ( nt -- x xt ) ... so that if the can of worms effect took out NT>COMPILE there would still be something of some use left. I don't see how that stands as a separate proposal, because then you need some *other* source of the nt's, and other sources will be less generic than wordlist traversal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-04 13:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <6814a08f-8cb4-43c3-9ab1-3a4faf65ab2d@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9381 |
On Feb 3, 2:53 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: ... > > RfD: traverse-wordlist > > v1 20 January 2012, Alex McDonald > v2 24 January 2012, Alex McDonald > v3 03 February 2012, Alex McDonald > ... > > There are a number of orders in which nodes may be visited in a > wordlist, each of which depends on the specific implementation of > wordlists. Although they are often based on hash tables, no > assumptions are made in the ANS Forth specification about internal > implementations. > > To conform with this and to simplify implementation of TRAVERSE- > WORDLIST and to allow various techniques to be used for wordlists, no > guarantee is given as to any specific order of node visits to each > word with one exception. ... > Kishna Myneni requested specific orderings. As there are many > possible orderings that may be useful for processing nodes, TRAVERSE- > WORDLIST can be used to support them by, for instance, building a > list during execution of xt-node and sorting the results. > Specifically, I wanted the traversal order within a wordlist to be in the reverse compilation order, i.e. most recently compiled word is encountered first. I still feel this would be an important feature, as it provides useful debugging information to the Forth user, and may simplify the writing of more advanced tools. Other orderings can still be generated by sorting, but IMO it is useful to have a guaranteed default order. I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order? Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this thread. > > Andrew Haley proposes a completely different mechanism for traversal; > although interesting, it has not been considered here. The rationale for an alternative traversal, as originally posted by Aleksej Saushev, and further discussed by Andrew Haley and others should be discussed here, in brief, if possible. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-04 14:55 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <5fbd6d88-08d4-4d1c-8c1e-5016581cf73d@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9394 |
On Feb 4, 9:19 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Feb 3, 2:53 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > RfD: traverse-wordlist > > > v1 20 January 2012, Alex McDonald > > v2 24 January 2012, Alex McDonald > > v3 03 February 2012, Alex McDonald > > ... > > > There are a number of orders in which nodes may be visited in a > > wordlist, each of which depends on the specific implementation of > > wordlists. Although they are often based on hash tables, no > > assumptions are made in the ANS Forth specification about internal > > implementations. > > > To conform with this and to simplify implementation of TRAVERSE- > > WORDLIST and to allow various techniques to be used for wordlists, no > > guarantee is given as to any specific order of node visits to each > > word with one exception. > ... > > Kishna Myneni requested specific orderings. As there are many > > possible orderings that may be useful for processing nodes, TRAVERSE- > > WORDLIST can be used to support them by, for instance, building a > > list during execution of xt-node and sorting the results. > > Specifically, I wanted the traversal order within a wordlist to be in > the reverse compilation order, i.e. most recently compiled word is > encountered first. I still feel this would be an important feature, as > it provides useful debugging information to the Forth user, and may > simplify the writing of more advanced tools. Other orderings can still > be generated by sorting, but IMO it is useful to have a guaranteed > default order. > > I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth > implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and > Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in > existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order? > Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this > thread. Win32Forth does that; but it requires very slow code. Wordlists are defined as a hash table with a linked list for collisions. The hash table is copied, and the copy table is searched; the largest address is the latest defined. It's unlinked from the copy and we search again for the now next largest. For small hash tables, that's an acceptable overhead, but with several thousand entries and a hash table of hundreds of linked lists, it might be considered too slow. The alternative is to build an array of wordcount entries and sort it. Both seem overkill if we're only looking for words that start with "BMW-", of which there may only be a handful, or if we're iterating over the wordlist to execute all the words as in my example for filenames. > > > > > Andrew Haley proposes a completely different mechanism for traversal; > > although interesting, it has not been considered here. > > The rationale for an alternative traversal, as originally posted by > Aleksej Saushev, and further discussed by Andrew Haley and others > should be discussed here, in brief, if possible. I didn't feel competent to write up a synopsis, as I got lost fairly early into the discussion. Would someone care to summarise for me? > > Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-04 19:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <117191b9-1393-4ede-a7f0-87125bfacada@o20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9395 |
On Feb 4, 4:55 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:19 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > ... > > > Specifically, I wanted the traversal order within a wordlist to be in > > the reverse compilation order, i.e. most recently compiled word is > > encountered first. I still feel this would be an important feature, as > > it provides useful debugging information to the Forth user, and may > > simplify the writing of more advanced tools. Other orderings can still > > be generated by sorting, but IMO it is useful to have a guaranteed > > default order. > > > I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth > > implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and > > Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in > > existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order? > > Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this > > thread. > > Win32Forth does that; but it requires very slow code. Wordlists are > defined as a hash table with a linked list for collisions. The hash > table is copied, and the copy table is searched; the largest address > is the latest defined. It's unlinked from the copy and we search again > for the now next largest. > > For small hash tables, that's an acceptable overhead, but with several > thousand entries and a hash table of hundreds of linked lists, it > might be considered too slow. The alternative is to build an array of > wordcount entries and sort it. Both seem overkill if we're only > looking for words that start with "BMW-", of which there may only be a > handful, or if we're iterating over the wordlist to execute all the > words as in my example for filenames. > I agree that the support for compilation order traversal is overkill if we are only interested in writing variants of WORDS. However, I can imagine the utility of such an ordering for other uses, such as generating dependency graphs. Would it be very hard, or be very impractical, to implement a parallel linked list of words in a wordlist in Win32Forth (in parallel with the hash table), to perform a fast traversal by compilation order (reverse order, of course)? Also, the notion of using xt addresses to sort by compilation order will only work for a dictionary based on a monolithic block of memory. For dynamically allotted dictionaries/wordlists on a virtual memory system, the numerical addresses may have no correspondence to compilation order. > > > > > Andrew Haley proposes a completely different mechanism for traversal; > > > although interesting, it has not been considered here. > > > The rationale for an alternative traversal, as originally posted by > > Aleksej Saushev, and further discussed by Andrew Haley and others > > should be discussed here, in brief, if possible. > > I didn't feel competent to write up a synopsis, as I got lost fairly > early into the discussion. Would someone care to summarise for me? > > Same issue for me also :( . Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-05 05:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <836cc54a-4e0f-4f96-a9be-52e2d8b8bae8@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9401 |
On Feb 4, 10:13 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Feb 4, 4:55 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 9:19 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > ... > > > > Specifically, I wanted the traversal order within a wordlist to be in > > > the reverse compilation order, i.e. most recently compiled word is > > > encountered first. I still feel this would be an important feature, as > > > it provides useful debugging information to the Forth user, and may > > > simplify the writing of more advanced tools. Other orderings can still > > > be generated by sorting, but IMO it is useful to have a guaranteed > > > default order. > > > > I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth > > > implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and > > > Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in > > > existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order? > > > Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this > > > thread. > > > Win32Forth does that; but it requires very slow code. Wordlists are > > defined as a hash table with a linked list for collisions. The hash > > table is copied, and the copy table is searched; the largest address > > is the latest defined. It's unlinked from the copy and we search again > > for the now next largest. > > > For small hash tables, that's an acceptable overhead, but with several > > thousand entries and a hash table of hundreds of linked lists, it > > might be considered too slow. The alternative is to build an array of > > wordcount entries and sort it. Both seem overkill if we're only > > looking for words that start with "BMW-", of which there may only be a > > handful, or if we're iterating over the wordlist to execute all the > > words as in my example for filenames. > > I agree that the support for compilation order traversal is overkill > if we are only interested in writing variants of WORDS. However, I can > imagine the utility of such an ordering for other uses, such as > generating dependency graphs. If the tool is working sensibly, installed up front rather than trying to do after the fact analysis, what it will need to be able to distinguish is the *visible* word for an implementation. Ensuring that the most recent word is returned first in the event of name clashes suffices for that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 11:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <2012Feb7.125552@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #9395 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>> I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth
>> implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and
>> Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in
>> existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order?
>> Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this
>> thread.
>
>Win32Forth does that; but it requires very slow code. Wordlists are
>defined as a hash table with a linked list for collisions.
My guess is that shadowed names are in the same bucket as the name
that shadows them, and within a linked list later-defined words come
first.
If this is correct, it is straightforward to obtain the requested
ordering: Just process each linked list from front to back. Different
linked lists can be processed in any order, even interleaved. Any
such ordering will have the requested property.
>> The rationale for an alternative traversal, as originally posted by
>> Aleksej Saushev, and further discussed by Andrew Haley and others
>> should be discussed here, in brief, if possible.
>
>I didn't feel competent to write up a synopsis, as I got lost fairly
>early into the discussion. Would someone care to summarise for me?
The discussion is not yet complete, so not yet.
- 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 | 2012-02-07 11:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <0e962600-3cf3-4357-8aa4-6bdcf90c3296@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9423 |
On Feb 7, 11:55 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > >> I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth > >> implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and > >> Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in > >> existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order? > >> Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this > >> thread. > > >Win32Forth does that; but it requires very slow code. Wordlists are > >defined as a hash table with a linked list for collisions. > > My guess is that shadowed names are in the same bucket as the name > that shadows them, and within a linked list later-defined words come > first. > > If this is correct, it is straightforward to obtain the requested > ordering: Just process each linked list from front to back. Different > linked lists can be processed in any order, even interleaved. Any > such ordering will have the requested property. I think I misunderstood Krishna in that case; I thought one of his requirements was a complete wordlist in temporal order, not just collisions in temporal order. The hashtables as are you describe. I was explaining how Win32Forth traverses a wordlist and produces all the contained words in order, from latest to earliest, by shadowing the hashtable then iteratively finding, using and unlinking the hash entry with the largest (that is, latest defined) address. > > >> The rationale for an alternative traversal, as originally posted by > >> Aleksej Saushev, and further discussed by Andrew Haley and others > >> should be discussed here, in brief, if possible. > > >I didn't feel competent to write up a synopsis, as I got lost fairly > >early into the discussion. Would someone care to summarise for me? > > The discussion is not yet complete, so not yet. I'll wait patiently. > > - 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 | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 14:53 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <bd02f5e9-c2b5-42dd-9fd3-8504f494b0e6@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9440 |
On Feb 7, 1:29 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 11:55 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > > >> I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth > > >> implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and > > >> Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in > > >> existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order? > > >> Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this > > >> thread. > > > >Win32Forth does that; but it requires very slow code. Wordlists are > > >defined as a hash table with a linked list for collisions. > > > My guess is that shadowed names are in the same bucket as the name > > that shadows them, and within a linked list later-defined words come > > first. > > > If this is correct, it is straightforward to obtain the requested > > ordering: Just process each linked list from front to back. Different > > linked lists can be processed in any order, even interleaved. Any > > such ordering will have the requested property. > > I think I misunderstood Krishna in that case; I thought one of his > requirements was a complete wordlist in temporal order, not just > collisions in temporal order. ... No, you understood me correctly. I prefer that the complete set of words in a wordlist be traversed in (reverse) compilation order, which, for a Forth system, should be equivalent to temporal order. Such a requirement will also simplify the wording of the standard for TRAVERSE-WORDLIST, since no further explanation is necessary. However, it may add some complexity to Forth systems which currently don't have such a capability. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 15:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <421f226f-0dc3-42fe-b99d-ccec36e7c1b7@dn8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9445 |
On Feb 7, 10:53 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Feb 7, 1:29 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 11:55 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) > > wrote: > > > > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > > > >> I understand the need to not disenfranchise possible Forth > > > >> implementations which would be consistent with the Forth-94 and > > > >> Forth-200x standards. However, is there any standard Forth system in > > > >> existence now which could not supply the desired traversal order? > > > >> Perhaps I missed it if someone has already mentioned it on this > > > >> thread. > > > > >Win32Forth does that; but it requires very slow code. Wordlists are > > > >defined as a hash table with a linked list for collisions. > > > > My guess is that shadowed names are in the same bucket as the name > > > that shadows them, and within a linked list later-defined words come > > > first. > > > > If this is correct, it is straightforward to obtain the requested > > > ordering: Just process each linked list from front to back. Different > > > linked lists can be processed in any order, even interleaved. Any > > > such ordering will have the requested property. > > > I think I misunderstood Krishna in that case; I thought one of his > > requirements was a complete wordlist in temporal order, not just > > collisions in temporal order. ... > > No, you understood me correctly. I prefer that the complete set of > words in a wordlist be traversed in (reverse) compilation order, > which, for a Forth system, should be equivalent to temporal order. > Such a requirement will also simplify the wording of the standard for > TRAVERSE-WORDLIST, since no further explanation is necessary. However, > it may add some complexity to Forth systems which currently don't have > such a capability. > > Krishna As I note elsewhere, simplifying the wording may require complexity of implementation; I would prefer the reverse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-05 05:51 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: rev 1 of TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <fad4450b-5b9d-42b0-9899-a7265bdc5969@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9394 |
On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Feb 3, 2:53 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > ... > > > > > > > > > RfD: traverse-wordlist > > > v1 20 January 2012, Alex McDonald > > v2 24 January 2012, Alex McDonald > > v3 03 February 2012, Alex McDonald > > ... > > > There are a number of orders in which nodes may be visited in a > > wordlist, each of which depends on the specific implementation of > > wordlists. Although they are often based on hash tables, no > > assumptions are made in the ANS Forth specification about internal > > implementations. > > > To conform with this and to simplify implementation of TRAVERSE- > > WORDLIST and to allow various techniques to be used for wordlists, no > > guarantee is given as to any specific order of node visits to each > > word with one exception. > ... > > Kishna Myneni requested specific orderings. As there are many > > possible orderings that may be useful for processing nodes, TRAVERSE- > > WORDLIST can be used to support them by, for instance, building a > > list during execution of xt-node and sorting the results. > > Specifically, I wanted the traversal order within a wordlist to be in > the reverse compilation order, i.e. most recently compiled word is > encountered first. I still feel this would be an important feature, as > it provides useful debugging information to the Forth user, and may > simplify the writing of more advanced tools. Other orderings can still > be generated by sorting, but IMO it is useful to have a guaranteed > default order. However, for all the example tools that you listed, defined order of clashing names would suffice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 09:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ZPKdnS9Gd6vsUYPSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #9160 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >>The evidence shows that one can, and most do, write WORDS without >>WORDLIST-TRAVERSE. The factors of WORDS are implementation-dependent and >>very diverse. Yes, in theory, everyone could adopt a standard set of >>factors and rewrite our WORDS, but I suspect there isn't enough >>perceived need to justify doing it. > > The wordlist traversal functionality is available through > surprisingly similar words in Win32Forth (VOC-ITERATE), VFX > (WalkWordList), and iForth (doWORDS). And anyway, systems having > the same functionality under different names and interfaces is a > problem that standardization is there to address (documenting cases > where systems provide already compatible interfaces is another, but > less valuable one); if implementation-dependency and diversity were > unsurmountable obstacles, we would not have the file wordset and > many others now. > > Concerning the need, Stephen Pelc reported 15 uses of such words in > the code tree of VFX and Krishna Myneni asked for such a word for a > specific application. And some people have complained that Gforth's > WORDS is useless because it does just what the standard demands. > They could implement a WORDS that's more to their liking with > WORDLIST-TRAVERSE. > > More generally, the focus on "application programmers" seems to be > myopic. There are programmers who are interested in building tools; > and Forth could benefit from a tool-building community beyond the > system implementors. > > When somebody is interested in building a Forth system, the advice > is to program in Forth instead, but when somebody is interested in > programming tools portably, and asks for language features for doing > that, the answer seems to be: No, application programmers don't ask > for such features, so we don't need these language features. One > might get the impression that Forth is not a language for building > programming tools (while it used to be an excellent language for > that). There's a real philosophical difference here. As Elizabeth put it, "... I would argue that a lot of Forth's efficiency and nimbleness is a result of our avoiding the temptation to try to add a lot of generalized features on spec or because other languages have them." Forth, Inc. was for years the custodian of the language, and although I wasn't there I have a pretty good idea of how it worked. An application required a capability, so they wrote words to provide it. A subsequent application needed the same thing, so they pulled those words from the toolbox. Some time later, after this set of words had been needed by several applications, they decided that it was generally useful, and the words were added to the language. Every word had to prove its value in real use before it was added. On the flip side, Words that turned out not to be so useful were removed. In this particular case, the best way to proceed is surely to write a compatibility layer for the Forths that people use, and see how useful WORDLIST-TRAVERSE turns out to be in practice. As you put it, > The wordlist traversal functionality is available through > surprisingly similar words in Win32Forth (VOC-ITERATE), VFX > (WalkWordList), and iForth (doWORDS). so such a layer should be pretty easy to write. I suggest that this should be done before anyone seriously thinks about standardizing this as part of the language, even as part of the tools wordset. The big question that we keep coming up against is how high to set the bar when considering whether something should be accepted. It's pretty clear that you're not going to get a small and simple language if you include everything that might be useful to a toolmaker. And, of course, how important that criterion is depends on how valuable you consider the property of simplicity to be. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 05:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7595e903-edb5-4bb1-9f35-cdfbd1b02069@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9067 |
On Jan 20, 5:06 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes:
> >It's an interesting proposition. If we take the language standard,
> >e.g. ANS Forth standard, as the set of postulates, I wonder if a
> >statement to the effect that Forth is or is not capable of providing
> >such and such a feature, can be shown to be provable, i.e. logically
> >deduced.
>
> You would have to formalize the standard to do such a thing, a job
> that even the mathematophile Haskell people have not done completely.
> And what you might then be able to prove is that a standard program
> cannot do this ("Forth" is a wider concept IMO).
>
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the goal of "formalizing" simply means to make
precise, i.e. free of ambiguity, using a standard terminology. The
standard does not have to be expressed in mathematical notation or use
mathematical terminology to be formal -- when applicable, the use of
such devices simply helps to free statements of ambiguity. We are
always running up against ambiguity in the statements of
specifications for certain words. Tightening up those specs *is* the
practice of formalization. Even without complete precision in a
language standard, which can probably never be achieved, one can still
make *convincing* logical arguments using the statements in the
standard as the postulates.
> >Theorem: If an ANS-Forth system provides WORDS, then it must be
> >capable of performing an (ordered) traversal of a wordlist.
>
> >Now, the spec for WORDS does not specify any ordering, but in order
> >for the Forth system to be standard, i.e. compile the most recent
> >definition of a word, then the ordered search is implied, and the fact
> >that WORDS exists means that a traversal through the entire wordlist
> >is possible.
>
> Yes, that's the informal argument. The claim is simple enough that
> this argument should be convincing, in which case we don't need the
> convincing powers of a formal proof (which, BTW, often convince people
> of wrong things).
>
If the above argument is free of ambiguity, it *becomes* a formal
proof.
> >What if we take away the requirement that an ANS-Forth system provides
> >WORDS? Then, is the above theorem valid? That is, is there a logical
> >proof which can be deduced from the postulates (the declarations of
> >the standard) that the system is capable of performing an ordered
> >traversal of a wordlist? I expect the answer is yes, but would have to
> >think about the proof.
>
> Theoretical possibility is not the most important question when it
> comes to standardizing a feature. Of course, the feature must be
> theoretically possible; next it must be practically possible (not too
> expensive to implement in time and space), and the WORDS argument
> already shows that; then there is the question of common practice, and
> we don't have that yet.
>
I'm just posing an academic question. I agree -- a proof of the
statement, " *Any* Forth system, consistent with the ANS Forth
standard, and providing X can implement wordlist traversal", does not
need to be given in order to standardize traversal and node
information words. We know that it is possible for many types of
implementations of Forth systems, which are consistent with the
standard, to provide such words. IMO, that is a sufficient condition.
As I said, Goedel is not tying the hands of system implementers.
> Of course, if you are theoretically inclined, you want to get rid of
> as many premises as possible, but in this case the result is then only
> interesting to theorists.
>
Many times, proofs also have practical value as well.
> - anton
Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-20 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan20.174137@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #9073 |
Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> writes:
>On Jan 20, 5:06=A0am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
>wrote:
>> Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> writes:
>> >It's an interesting proposition. If we take the language standard,
>> >e.g. ANS Forth standard, as the set of postulates, I wonder if a
>> >statement to the effect that Forth is or is not capable of providing
>> >such and such a feature, can be shown to be provable, i.e. logically
>> >deduced.
>>
>> You would have to formalize the standard to do such a thing, a job
>> that even the mathematophile Haskell people have not done completely.
>> And what you might then be able to prove is that a standard program
>> cannot do this ("Forth" is a wider concept IMO).
>>
>
>Perhaps I'm wrong, but the goal of "formalizing" simply means to make
>precise, i.e. free of ambiguity, using a standard terminology. The
>standard does not have to be expressed in mathematical notation or use
>mathematical terminology to be formal
Yes, but: It's not going to be less work, and you would then have to
use your non-mathematical notation in your formal proofs, which even
fewer people would understand and check than if you used "mathematical
notation" (actually mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists
invent new notation all the time, but they typically base it on more
established mathematical notation).
- 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-16 10:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ifidnRCBr5qtzInSnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8896 |
Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote: > Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? I don't think I've ever seen a request for such a thing before. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-17 07:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9e3c821-c75c-409a-907b-c234316e7b78@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8896 |
Dictionary traverse at language level would be something like: first-name ( wid -- nt flag ) next-name ( nt1 -- nt2 flag ) name>string ( nt -- ca u ) name>execute ( nt -- xt ) name>compile ( nt -- x xt ) "flag" would be true if the requested dictionary token exists, false otherwise. This also seems to be something that could be defined in a portability harness for each supported implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-17 10:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iNOdnZqdQdWGAIjSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8896 |
Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> wrote: > Others must have brought up this question previously, but I'm > wondering why there are no standard words in Forth for traversing a > wordlist and obtaining basic information about each node? While > standard Forth provides a great many features for extensibility of the > language (with CREATE ... DOES> being the classic example), standard > Forth seems to be lacking the basic capability of traversing the > wordlist as a part of the language. Such a capability is needed to > provide some kinds of advanced programming tools. For example, I may > want to determine all instances of word name overlaps in all of the > wordlists in the current search order. AFAIK, there is no standard way > to do that presently. > > On first thought, the minimum set of wordlist traversal words needed > are, > > a) Set the current node to the head or the tail of the wordlist -- > only one is sufficient if we restrict ourselves to a single direction > for the traversal. > > b) Advance to the next node or backup to the previous node (again, > only one will suffice). > > c) Obtain the xt of the current node > > d) Obtain the name of the current node (i.e. name of the word) I think you're not allowing for some possibilities. For example, it might be that there is an array of lists, and the name of a word is hashed with the wordlist in which it appears. This chooses the list to search. This has the nice property that the length of the lists you have to search is not a property of the length of the wordlist. It still conforms to the standard. However, traversing a wordlist isn't going to be easy. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 00:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jf5114$l4o$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8970 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > I think you're not allowing for some possibilities. For example, it > might be that there is an array of lists, and the name of a word is > hashed with the wordlist in which it appears. This chooses the list > to search. This has the nice property that the length of the lists > you have to search is not a property of the length of the wordlist. > It still conforms to the standard. However, traversing a wordlist > isn't going to be easy. In Gforth, we use such a hash as structure to search wordlists quickly - it's a unified hash, so all words end up in the same hash (for different wordlists at different buckets, because the wordlist id goes into the hashing algorithm). But then, we also keep the linked list, to implement WORDS and to build up the hash at startup (and, since the hash search is not part of the kernel, but loaded later, to convert existing linked list vocabularies into hashed ones). The right abstraction IMHO is the map abstraction, i.e. pass an xt and a wordlist to a mapping function, which traverses whatever structure there is. A traversal of such a hash is still possible, by filtering out all the words that do not belong to the wordlist we are currently traversing. How to terminate such a traversal? I suggest using THROW with a special "end of traversal" pseudo-error number. This works even when the traversal function has to be recursive (tree traversal). The downside is that THROW resets the stack pointer to before calling, so possible return values have to be allocated on the data stack beforehand. But it's doable. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan18.145350@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8970 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>I think you're not allowing for some possibilities. For example, it
>might be that there is an array of lists, and the name of a word is
>hashed with the wordlist in which it appears. This chooses the list
>to search. This has the nice property that the length of the lists
>you have to search is not a property of the length of the wordlist.
>It still conforms to the standard. However, traversing a wordlist
>isn't going to be easy.
However wordlists are implemented, a system has to traverse a wordlist
to implement WORDS, so something like VOC-ITERATE is definitely
possible on any system that implements WORDS (and if the system does
not implement words, it will not implement VOC-ITERATE, either).
Bernd Paysan outlined how a system that implements wordlists in the
way you describe could implement VOC-ITERATE.
- 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 | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-18 07:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab61eb5e-28f8-491e-8cdf-5aa496452d61@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8989 |
On Jan 18, 7:53 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > >I think you're not allowing for some possibilities. For example, it > >might be that there is an array of lists, and the name of a word is > >hashed with the wordlist in which it appears. This chooses the list > >to search. This has the nice property that the length of the lists > >you have to search is not a property of the length of the wordlist. > >It still conforms to the standard. However, traversing a wordlist > >isn't going to be easy. > > However wordlists are implemented, a system has to traverse a wordlist > to implement WORDS, so something like VOC-ITERATE is definitely > possible on any system that implements WORDS (and if the system does > not implement words, it will not implement VOC-ITERATE, either). > Bernd Paysan outlined how a system that implements wordlists in the > way you describe could implement VOC-ITERATE. > My understanding is that the ability to traverse a wordlist, then, is independent of the debate about FIND, which is concerned with the specific type of information to be returned by a FIND-like word. It would certainly be possible to specify a minmial word set, say the "introspection" word set, that implements WORDLIST-ITERATE (VOC- ITERATE would not be standard), and then words to obtain the NAME field or FIND's xt field. If FIND is later extended as a new word in the standard, a corresponding field retrieval word can be added to the introspection word set. Also, I'm not sure I understand Bernd's rationale that the iteration word, e.g. WORDLIST-ITERATE, perform a throw at the end of the iteration. What is the disadvantage of simply returning with an exit code? Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web