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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-21 23:03 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <DICdna_y3ZvAb2_TnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8304 |
On 12/21/11 9:29 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > BruceMcF wrote: >> Except, given that Forth94 was codifying an already existing legacy >> practice, what reasons have you advanced for abandoning the legacy >> practice? > Well, for one thing an old poll on HCC Forth (a Dutch Forth chapter) showed > most members didn't have a clue how to use DOES>. And I had a problem > interpreting what the darn thing was supposed to do as well - when I > remember correctly. > > The ANS Forth standard in itself is pretty clear in as far the functionality > of DOES>: change the behavior of the last CREATEd definition. Ironically, > the rationale only clouds it by just specifying a "Typical use" without any > rationale at all! > > So what am I supposed to implement? And like Paysan correctly stated: if the > functionality is clearly defined as such why can't I apply any > interpretation semantics? Since *interpretation semantics* are explicitly undefined, you are free to implement any that strike your fancy. Ring bells, fire cannons, issue error messages, compile something, whatever. It's just that application writers are warned that they cannot *depend* on any particular behavior from using it interpretively. > In short, I'm not saying you have to abandon any legacy practices, just > thighten the definition. As shown here there are plenty of open questions > to be answered and many new applications to be had. Just being conservative > doesn't help the development and application of this language. If Forth20xx wants to define interpretation semantics for DOES> they can. Propose some, if you wish. Forth94 doesn't specify any. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 08:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <14e5550e-b1a6-4e3f-a419-06280c8d36ee@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8304 |
On Dec 22, 2:29 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > BruceMcF wrote: > > Except, given that Forth94 was codifying an already existing legacy > > practice, what reasons have you advanced for abandoning the legacy > > practice? > Well, for one thing an old poll on HCC Forth (a Dutch Forth chapter) > showed most members didn't have a clue how to use DOES>. And I had a > problem interpreting what the darn thing was supposed to do as well > - when I remember correctly. The paragraph seems to end without advancing a reason to abandon the legacy practice. > The ANS Forth standard in itself is pretty clear in as far the > functionality of DOES>: change the behavior of the last CREATEd > definition. Ironically, the rationale only clouds it by just > specifying a "Typical use" without any rationale at all! What the rationale reports as a typical use is, indeed, the most typical use. Only someone who is unclear on what the meaning of the word "typical" is would confuse that with all supported uses. > So what am I supposed to implement? Something that behaves like the standard says it should behave. > And like Paysan correctly stated: if the > functionality is clearly defined as such why can't I apply any > interpretation semantics? An implementer can if they wish, but a program author or user would have to verify that the implementer has applies the interpretation semantics they are expecting before compiling that source on another Forth94 compiler. > In short, I'm not saying you have to abandon any legacy practices, > just tighten the definition. Ed, however, is demanding the a wide swathe of legacy practice be abandoned, under the pretext that they were not in fact legacy practices. > As shown here there are plenty of open questions > to be answered ... One can adopt the same strategy to generate "open questions" about any other explicit and unambiguous Forth94 specification. However, as you perhaps allude to in your first paragraph, the move from compile time and runtime to defining word compile time, defined word compile time and defined word word runtime is open to confusion. > ... and many new applications to be had. Just being conservative > doesn't help the development and application of this language. What Ed is asking for is not to expand the development of the language, but to rule out already existing applications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-23 08:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ef432a8$0$6986$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8306 |
BruceMcF wrote: > On Dec 22, 2:29 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Well, for one thing an old poll on HCC Forth (a Dutch Forth chapter) >> showed most members didn't have a clue how to use DOES>. And I had a >> problem interpreting what the darn thing was supposed to do as well >> - when I remember correctly. > The paragraph seems to end without advancing a reason to abandon the > legacy practice. I didn't write this because I necessarily agree with Ed (since I didn't see him define any specific alternative), but because the LENGTH and duration of this discussion proves there are issues involving DOES>. I merely try to introduce these issues at the most basic level: is the concept clear to mere mortals? Answer: obviously not. >> The ANS Forth standard in itself is pretty clear in as far the >> functionality of DOES>: change the behavior of the last CREATEd >> definition. Ironically, the rationale only clouds it by just >> specifying a "Typical use" without any rationale at all! > What the rationale reports as a typical use is, indeed, the most > typical use. Only someone who is unclear on what the meaning of the > word "typical" is would confuse that with all supported uses. I pose a simple statement and all I get is lawyer speak. What I expect of a rationale as an implementer is explanation WHY certain choices were made and which principles or mechanisms the TC had in mind. Example: the choices made concerning LOCALS or the basic mechanism behind CATCH/THROW. "Typical use" in this context is something I'd expect from "My First Forth Book", not a standards document. Given the experienced complexity of the concept I expect something more. I guess this rationale was written at 4:55 PM. > Something that behaves like the standard says it should behave. Lawyer speak to a rethorical question. >> And like Paysan correctly stated: if the >> functionality is clearly defined as such why can't I apply any >> interpretation semantics? > > An implementer can if they wish, but a program author or user would > have to verify that the implementer has applies the interpretation > semantics they are expecting before compiling that source on another > Forth94 compiler. Lawyer speak. It is a question I'd expect to see answered in a rationale by the TC. > One can adopt the same strategy to generate "open questions" about any > other explicit and unambiguous Forth94 specification. However, as you > perhaps allude to in your first paragraph, the move from compile time > and runtime to defining word compile time, defined word compile time > and defined word word runtime is open to confusion. Ok, now we're getting somewhere.. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-23 07:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <84b40bbe-df19-4563-9d8d-518734e2b09e@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8321 |
On Dec 23, 7:50 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > BruceMcF wrote: > > On Dec 22, 2:29 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Well, for one thing an old poll on HCC Forth (a Dutch Forth chapter) > >> showed most members didn't have a clue how to use DOES>. And I had a > >> problem interpreting what the darn thing was supposed to do as well > >> - when I remember correctly. > > The paragraph seems to end without advancing a reason to abandon the > > legacy practice. > > I didn't write this because I necessarily agree with Ed (since I didn't see > him define any specific alternative), but because the LENGTH and duration > of this discussion proves there are issues involving DOES>. I merely try to > introduce these issues at the most basic level: is the concept clear to > mere mortals? Answer: obviously not. But it is clear (IMHO). This is all confusion (from one poster) as to the relationship of CREATE and DOES> *at compile time* where there is no relationship or syntax imposed, and the words are *not* paired, nor are they bound in any textual or execution way with the word or words that compile them. Contrast that with the relationship of CREATE and DOES> at *execution time* where DOES> modifies the last CREATEd word to do the action associated with the compiled, nameless code after DOES>. That leads naturally to a interpreted DOES>. Immediately modify the last executed CREATE (wherever it may textually have occurred is irrelevant) to do the action associated with the compiled, nameless code after DOES>. Only a minor change is required in the spec to support this. 6.1.1250 DOES> “does” CORE Interpretation: ( -- C: colon-sys2 ) Append the run-time semantics below to the last executed definition. Produce colon-sys2. Append the initiation semantics given below to the last executed definition. An ambiguous condition exists if the name of the last executed definition was not defined with CREATE or a user- defined word that calls CREATE. A.6.1.1250 DOES> Typical interpretation use: CREATE COUNTER 0 , DOES> DUP @ 1+ OVER ! ; This is the equivalent of: :NONAME DOES> DUP @ 1+ OVER ! ; CREATE COUNTER 0 , EXECUTE for systems that don't wish to support an interpreted DOES>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-23 08:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76982bf1-c7f3-4adf-868f-634a10948267@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8321 |
On Dec 23, 2:50 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > I didn't write this because I necessarily agree with Ed (since I > didn't see him define any specific alternative), but because the > LENGTH and duration of this discussion proves there are issues > involving DOES>. I merely try to introduce these issues at the most > basic level: is the concept clear to mere mortals? Answer: obviously > not. Adding "obviously" does not upgrade an argument. Its silly to suggest that the *only* plausible reason a Usenet News discussion could go on at this length is because the standard is obscure. Equally well, if someone misreads a clear spec based on their own standing confusion about how the words work, the fact that the spec is clear will encourage multiple people to jump in with corrections. In that equally plausible case, the length of the discussion comes from the tenacity of the person misreading the spec. So the "obviously" is BS: its not *obviously* any such thing. >>> The ANS Forth standard in itself is pretty clear in as far the >>> functionality of DOES>: change the behavior of the last CREATEd >>> definition. Ironically, the rationale only clouds it by just >>> specifying a "Typical use" without any rationale at all! >> What the rationale reports as a typical use is, indeed, the most >> typical use. Only someone who is unclear on what the meaning of the >> word "typical" is would confuse that with all supported uses. > I pose a simple statement and all I get is lawyer speak. Shorter, more Anglo-Saxon speak would have been rude in the context. But if rude is what you want ... When the only "correction" required is "this is a typical use but is not the only possible way to use it" ... the objection is silly. If you think *other* possible uses should be included, go for it: there's a streamlined Forth200x process for editorial changes that don't modify the standard itself. Hell, if you can get consensus for bloating up the standard with pointless defensive writing against every possible misconception, then go for it. > What I expect of a rationale as an implementer is explanation WHY > certain choices were made and which principles or mechanisms the TC > had in mind. Even when the choice was made because that's far and away the most common practice? That was already said up front, why say it again for almost every single word specification? >> Something that behaves like the standard says it should behave. > Lawyer speak to a rethorical question. It would be silly to expect to get away with a weak argument just because it was phrased as a rhetorical question. Calling it lawyer speak when you are called on a claim is not a "win argument without supporting it" card. >> An implementer can if they wish, but a program author or user would >> have to verify that the implementer has applies the interpretation >> semantics they are expecting before compiling that source on another >> Forth94 compiler. > Lawyer speak. It is a question I'd expect to see answered in a > rationale by the TC. Its silly to expect that the TC write a rationale to anticipate every possible innovation or extension that some implementer might make over a decade in the future. Indeed, it would be silly to expect 200x to standardize it *now* because it strikes your fancy. The steps are: (1) Implement it (2) Do something cool with it (3) Other people implement it (4) Someone says, "so many implementations do this now, should it be standardized".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-24 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2011Dec24.143802@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8321 |
Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> writes:
>I didn't write this because I necessarily agree with Ed (since I didn't see
>him define any specific alternative), but because the LENGTH and duration
>of this discussion proves there are issues involving DOES>.
Sure, it proves that there is one person who is not content with the
standard specification of DOES>, and is energetic enough to keep the
thread going. It also proved that "do not feed the trolls" is not
very effective in clf, at least for some topics (but is it anywhere?).
Name any feature that you think is perfectly specified in the
standard, and if you pay me enough, I will produce a kook who will
"prove" by the same means that "there are issues involving" this
feature.
>>> And like Paysan correctly stated: if the
>>> functionality is clearly defined as such why can't I apply any
>>> interpretation semantics?
Very simple: There was no common practice for interpretation semantics
for this word. In other words: Some (many?) systems produced an error
when you used DOES> interpretively or they produced behaviour that did
not make much sense.
- 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 | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-25 02:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9c7fe71d-869e-44cd-aacd-845430de1c74@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8337 |
On Dec 24, 1:38 pm, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> writes: > >I didn't write this because I necessarily agree with Ed (since I didn't see > >him define any specific alternative), but because the LENGTH and duration > >of this discussion proves there are issues involving DOES>. > > Sure, it proves that there is one person who is not content with the > standard specification of DOES>, and is energetic enough to keep the > thread going. It also proved that "do not feed the trolls" is not > very effective in clf, at least for some topics (but is it anywhere?). > > Name any feature that you think is perfectly specified in the > standard, and if you pay me enough, I will produce a kook who will > "prove" by the same means that "there are issues involving" this > feature. > > >>> And like Paysan correctly stated: if the > >>> functionality is clearly defined as such why can't I apply any > >>> interpretation semantics? > > Very simple: There was no common practice for interpretation semantics > for this word. In other words: Some (many?) systems produced an error > when you used DOES> interpretively or they produced behaviour that did > not make much sense. > > - 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/ The notion of DOES> in interpretation mode is interesting enough. It happens to work on my home system, though it compiles an errant EXIT to HERE as it is an immediate word. However, I'm not that convinced of its usefulness outside of a definition. It doesn't give you anything you couldn't do more straightforwardly with a vector, does it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-25 09:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7977f0d8-b7e2-4120-b086-08db0b5737df@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8345 |
On Dec 25, 5:37 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > However, I'm not that convinced of its usefulness outside of a > definition. It doesn't give you anything you couldn't do more > straightforwardly with a vector, does it? The thing is that as a compiling word, it shouldn't *do* anything until the definition it is contained in *executes*. And with no name, there is no way to execute the name it is contained in. The EXIT that is compiled in your system is not, of course, an errant EXIT ~ its is intrinsic to the function of DOES> as a compiling word to exit the word that it is contained in. Where DOES> as an interpreted word would be clearer would be if: :NONAME DOES> DUP CELL+ SWAP @ ; CREATE FOO PAD$, EXECUTE ... would be clearer as: CREATE FOO PAD$, DOES> DUP CELL+ SWAP @ ; EXECUTE Which on a system where DOES> ignores definitions created by :NONAME could be provided by: : DOES> STATE @ 0= IF :NONAME THEN POSTPONE DOES> ; IMMEDIATE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-26 12:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lwt8tq.kov@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8346 |
In article <7977f0d8-b7e2-4120-b086-08db0b5737df@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote: >On Dec 25, 5:37=A0am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> However, I'm not that convinced of its usefulness outside of a >> definition. It doesn't give you anything you couldn't do more >> straightforwardly with a vector, does it? > >The thing is that as a compiling word, it shouldn't *do* anything >until the definition it is contained in *executes*. And with no name, >there is no way to execute the name it is contained in. > >The EXIT that is compiled in your system is not, of course, an errant >EXIT ~ its is intrinsic to the function of DOES> as a compiling word >to exit the word that it is contained in. > >Where DOES> as an interpreted word would be clearer would be if: > >:NONAME DOES> DUP CELL+ SWAP @ ; >CREATE FOO PAD$, EXECUTE > >... would be clearer as: > >CREATE FOO PAD$, >DOES> DUP CELL+ SWAP @ ; EXECUTE > >Which on a system where DOES> ignores definitions created by :NONAME >could be provided by: > >: DOES> STATE @ 0=3D IF :NONAME THEN POSTPONE DOES> ; IMMEDIATE > Talking about a clearer DOES> A defining word could be : aap do-some-things CREATE do-things [DOES: more-things DOES;] patch-data patch-action yet-more ; patch-data would decorate the CREATE d definition such that it puts the address on the stack where HERE points to "at run-time" patch-action would be immediate and compile code to the effect of filling the action of the CREATEd word with what is presented by the more-things that is somehow collected by [DOES: ... DOES;] (so a postponed action.) patch-data could be anywhere after CREATE (using the actual run time HERE) and patch-action anywhere after [DOES: Now what we actually do is : aap do-some-things CREATE patch-data do-things yet-more [DOES: more-things DOES;] patch-action ; which is both restrictive and confusing, especially the conflation of `` DOES;] patch-action ; '' into a single `` ; '' (The better formulation is one step away from OO). 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 | 2011-12-27 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f107b7c-96a5-4075-92d9-9448df1837de@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8354 |
On Dec 26, 7:17 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Now what we actually do is > : aap do-some-things CREATE patch-data do-things yet-more > [DOES: more-things DOES;] patch-action ; > which is both restrictive and confusing, especially the conflation > of `` DOES;] patch-action ; '' into a single `` ; '' We do? More normally, "patch-action" takes place at the point of "[DOES:" above, as part of its execution, and, indeed, while a: ... [DOES: ... ;DOES] ... ... system would be quite workable for, eg, having different actions patched in under different circumstances, a "patch-action" that is separated from "[DOES:" would be a mistake. Indeed, doing the "patch-action" at the time of ";" does not follow the Forth94 specification, which specifies that DOES> performs your "patch-action" itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 07:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ef9676b$0$6964$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8337 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> writes: > Sure, it proves that there is one person who is not content with the > standard specification of DOES>, and is energetic enough to keep the > thread going. It also proved that "do not feed the trolls" is not > very effective in clf, at least for some topics (but is it anywhere?). Count the number of people discussing here and the variety of subjects being discussed and say again it's one person. And if you weren't yellow, you'd have the guts to say who's "trolling". > Name any feature that you think is perfectly specified in the > standard, and if you pay me enough, I will produce a kook who will > "prove" by the same means that "there are issues involving" this > feature. Beside the issue, trying to change the subject. > Very simple: There was no common practice for interpretation semantics > for this word. In other words: Some (many?) systems produced an error > when you used DOES> interpretively or they produced behaviour that did > not make much sense. Well, that makes sense. However, as a TC I'd expect some vision here. I don't suppose the TC as only there to record the "current use", but also to make the language future proof - as they did with Wordsets, the move to addr/count strings to name a few. Even the LOCALS issue showed AT LEAST they thought about it. And for those who doubt it: yes, I know how to use DOES> (I even wrote a small tutorial on it), I'm quite familiar with the workings of Forth 200x and the possibility to write a RfD or CfV. But since several members of the TC are on c.l.f I don't think it's asking too much to (a) explain their reasons for having something in the Standard (or not in the Standard), (b) show some vision and (c) take some consistent leadership in the matter. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 03:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DeidnVpr79oZCWTTnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8358 |
Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Anton Ertl wrote: > >> Very simple: There was no common practice for interpretation semantics >> for this word. In other words: Some (many?) systems produced an error >> when you used DOES> interpretively or they produced behaviour that did >> not make much sense. > > Well, that makes sense. However, as a TC I'd expect some vision > here. I don't suppose the TC as only there to record the "current > use", but also to make the language future proof - as they did with > Wordsets, the move to addr/count strings to name a few. Even the > LOCALS issue showed AT LEAST they thought about it. > > And for those who doubt it: yes, I know how to use DOES> (I even > wrote a small tutorial on it), I'm quite familiar with the workings > of Forth 200x and the possibility to write a RfD or CfV. But since > several members of the TC are on c.l.f I don't think it's asking too > much to (a) explain their reasons for having something in the > Standard (or not in the Standard), (b) show some vision and (c) take > some consistent leadership in the matter. What, though, is the matter at hand? If you have any particular questions please ask them, but the matter of the definition of DOES> seems to me to have been dealt with. The interpretive use of DOES> has been showm to be pointless because if you want a "one shot" definition you can use :NONAME . Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-27 11:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9aa2cd3f-bb21-4ba3-a50f-d998360d6bb9@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8358 |
On Dec 27, 1:37 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Well, that makes sense. However, as a TC I'd expect some vision > here. I don't suppose the TC as only there to record the "current > use", but also to make the language future proof - as they did > with Wordsets, the move to addr/count strings to name a few. Even > the LOCALS issue showed AT LEAST they thought about it. But the TC was explicitly *not there* to deliberately break current implementations for no good reason. And mandating an interpret mode behavior for DOES> would be deliberately breaking current implementations of DOES> ... and *if* that behavior was to define an anonymous one-shot patch to a CREATEd word, deliberately breaking current implementations of DOES> for no good reason, as :NONAME already gives that capability with no modification required to existing DOES> implementations. DOES> is CORE. Superfluous flourishes should be avoided in CORE words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 08:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4efacc2c$0$6906$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8369 |
BruceMcF wrote: > But the TC was explicitly *not there* to deliberately break current > implementations for no good reason. And mandating an interpret mode > behavior for DOES> would be deliberately breaking current > implementations of DOES> ... and *if* that behavior was to define an > anonymous one-shot patch to a CREATEd word, deliberately breaking > current implementations of DOES> for no good reason, as :NONAME > already gives that capability with no modification required to > existing DOES> implementations. > > DOES> is CORE. Superfluous flourishes should be avoided in CORE words. The TC broke lots of existing Forth-83 implementations - as they admit in the standard themselves. Maybe not beyond repair - but they did. I don't think adding an interpretation mode to DOES> would break many implementations "beyond repair" as well, since the compilation semantics remain the same in interpretation mode (I don't think that comes out right): simply patch the last (CREATEd) word. And as for the :NONAME solution: it's plain ugly and very unintuitive IMHO. On top of that: I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck Moore when he says internal compiler words shouldn't be in CORE anyway, but in a separate wordset. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 04:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8PCdnZlsUu-bc2fTnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8388 |
Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> wrote: > And as for the :NONAME solution: it's plain ugly and very > unintuitive IMHO. OK, so that's the real reason. For a word to be added, or a new function added to an existing word, there has to be some convincing utility. In this case there is no added utility: the only justification for it is that you don't like the existing syntax. That really isn't going to fly. Your only recourse is to try to persuade the vendors that interpretive DOES> is really worth supporting. The fact that on-one noticed the need for it for decades doesn't make that very likely. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 14:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jdf3v7$mhf$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #8391 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Your only recourse is to try to persuade the vendors that interpretive > DOES> is really worth supporting. The fact that on-one noticed the > need for it for decades doesn't make that very likely. Well, Gforth has it now for two decades, means that it's not no-one who noticed the usefulness. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 12:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tOmdnceVdZp8xGbTnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8395 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> Your only recourse is to try to persuade the vendors that interpretive >> DOES> is really worth supporting. The fact that on-one noticed the >> need for it for decades doesn't make that very likely. > > Well, Gforth has it now for two decades, means that it's not no-one who > noticed the usefulness. Ah, okay. Point taken. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-28 10:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <751f5336-a6cc-48bd-b939-32c4f5ff03bd@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8388 |
On Dec 28, 2:59 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > The TC broke lots of existing Forth-83 implementations - as they > admit in the standard themselves. Cite the instance where they did that when what the Forth-83 implementations did was compatible with other widely used implementations. There's chapter, section, subsection and subsubsection numbers scattered throughout the document, its not hard to cite an instance. > Maybe not beyond repair - but they did. I don't > think adding an interpretation mode to DOES> would break many > implementations "beyond repair" as well, ... *Each* instance needs to be justified. > And as for the :NONAME solution: it's plain ugly and very > unintuitive IMHO. Ugly in what sense? If its surface appearance, then this is Forth ~ giving that approach a facelift is not so hard: : :DOES> :NONAME POSTPONE DOES> ; > On top of that: I agree wholeheartedly with Chuck Moore when he > says internal compiler words shouldn't be in CORE anyway, but in > a separate wordset. :NONAME might be called an internal compiled word at a stretch (though its used as a normal userland word by Mini-OOF), but its not in CORE, its in CORE EXT. DOES> is in CORE, but it cannot be described as an internal compiler word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4efce675$0$6909$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8402 |
BruceMcF wrote: > On Dec 28, 2:59 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> The TC broke lots of existing Forth-83 implementations - as they >> admit in the standard themselves. > > Cite the instance where they did that when what the Forth-83 > implementations did was compatible with other widely used > implementations. There's chapter, section, subsection and > subsubsection numbers scattered throughout the document, its not hard > to cite an instance. It's not clear to me what you're exactly asking of me, but this is a "when time is available" question. I know what I'm looking for is there. There was a time when I scattered for the standard, and started seaching for the passage I had in mind, but not anymore - I grew up. I'm not "gekke Henkie". Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-29 14:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <09b2b71d-3db5-42a7-992d-569ab4ddc912@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8444 |
On Dec 29, 5:16 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > I know what I'm looking for is there. I asked because I'm skeptical that the example that you allude to is as you imply it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web