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 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-23 15:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <fe4b69c6-e2dc-4111-bf6c-c42aea9932c3@o20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9177 |
On Jan 23, 3:39 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Jan 23, 7:13 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 23, 12:10 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 23, 11:25?am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > >> Proposal > > > >> -------- > > > > >> TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS > > > > >> Traverse the wordlist wid in no specific or guaranteed order, > > > >> executing the user-specified word > > > > >> xt-node ( x*i nt -- x'*i u ) > > > > >> ... > > > > > Can you comment on why traversal does not guarantee any specific > > > > order? Is it impossible to achieve an ordered traversal, for example, > > > > in the reverse order of addition to the wordlist, under some > > > > implementations? > > > > Not impossible, but hard work. If you have a number of hash buckets > > > you'd naturally traverse them from left to right, regardless of the > > > order the words were added to the hash table. You could work out a > > > way to preserver the order, but FIND et al certainly wouldn't need it. > > > > Andrew. > > > I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > > most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > > all, Forth systems work? > > > Krishna > > Yes, but that's only for names that collide, and there's no guarantee > that the masked word will even be available (and it's not FINDable) > until after FORGET or MARKER. For names that don't collide (for > instance not into the same hash bucket), which came first has to be > based on some other criteria, like address or time of creation. The > spec doesn't proscribe the mechanism by which a wordlist works, just > that it's searchable via SEARCH-WORDLIST or FIND and that the > definition of the same but temporally later word will come first. (At > least, that's how I read the following.) > > 3.4.2 Finding definition names > A string matches a definition name if each character in the string > matches the corresponding character in the string used as the > definition name when the definition was created. So, your proposed traversal word would not guarantee that *all* words having the same name will be encountered? For all practical purposes, is it true that a named word which has been masked by redefinition within a wordlist can be treated as a :NONAME word? I think we are in agreement that the most recent definition of a named word should be encountered first by a traversal, whether the traversal is ordered or not, and whether multiple definitions of a name can be returned or not. I think my more immediate needs would be satisfied by such a traversal word; however, I can't help but feel that we will need an ordered traversal word down the road. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-23 16:57 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <bebb35bc-ffc0-4578-acb1-9fc8c0bb7098@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9182 |
On Jan 23, 11:07 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Jan 23, 3:39 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 23, 7:13 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 23, 12:10 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 23, 11:25?am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > >> Proposal > > > > >> -------- > > > > > >> TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS > > > > > >> Traverse the wordlist wid in no specific or guaranteed order, > > > > >> executing the user-specified word > > > > > >> xt-node ( x*i nt -- x'*i u ) > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > Can you comment on why traversal does not guarantee any specific > > > > > order? Is it impossible to achieve an ordered traversal, for example, > > > > > in the reverse order of addition to the wordlist, under some > > > > > implementations? > > > > > Not impossible, but hard work. If you have a number of hash buckets > > > > you'd naturally traverse them from left to right, regardless of the > > > > order the words were added to the hash table. You could work out a > > > > way to preserver the order, but FIND et al certainly wouldn't need it. > > > > > Andrew. > > > > I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > > > most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > > > all, Forth systems work? > > > > Krishna > > > Yes, but that's only for names that collide, and there's no guarantee > > that the masked word will even be available (and it's not FINDable) > > until after FORGET or MARKER. For names that don't collide (for > > instance not into the same hash bucket), which came first has to be > > based on some other criteria, like address or time of creation. The > > spec doesn't proscribe the mechanism by which a wordlist works, just > > that it's searchable via SEARCH-WORDLIST or FIND and that the > > definition of the same but temporally later word will come first. (At > > least, that's how I read the following.) > > > 3.4.2 Finding definition names > > A string matches a definition name if each character in the string > > matches the corresponding character in the string used as the > > definition name when the definition was created. > > So, your proposed traversal word would not guarantee that *all* words > having the same name will be encountered? Yes, should your wordlist structure and traversal make them available. No if it doesn't, since a wordlist that only returns the latest A when two or more As have been defined still meets the requirements of the spec for wordlists, at least until FORGET and MARKER. The spec is as far as I can see is silent on this and should be, because they aren't SEARCH-WORDLIST or FINDable, and it's an implementation issue. > For all practical purposes, > is it true that a named word which has been masked by redefinition > within a wordlist can be treated as a :NONAME word? I can't see why that would be required or desirable since :NONAMEs do not appear in wordlists, and a redefinition isn't a change to a :NONAME, simply a masking of the previous behaviour. > I think we are in > agreement that the most recent definition of a named word should be > encountered first by a traversal, whether the traversal is ordered or > not, and whether multiple definitions of a name can be returned or > not. Yes. In other words, if you can SEARCH-WORDLIST A successfully, then a traversal will also at some point execute xt-node with an nt that represents that A. > > I think my more immediate needs would be satisfied by such a traversal > word; however, I can't help but feel that we will need an ordered > traversal word down the road. There are many possible such orderings, and they can be based off TRAVERSE-WORDLIST; for instance, by building a list and sorting. > > Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 20:43 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <jgrutp$9pe$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #9172 |
Krishna Myneni wrote: > I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > all, Forth systems work? FIND will always find the most recent definition, but then, with a hash- table approach, the two definitions would be in the same (chained) bucket, because they have the same name. Definitions with different names end up in different buckets, and therefore, the ordering can be unknown to the system. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 14:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <1e8ee043-49db-4c1e-8d9d-a28ff9f2581c@m24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9441 |
On Feb 7, 1:43 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > Krishna Myneni wrote: > > I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > > most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > > all, Forth systems work? > > FIND will always find the most recent definition, but then, with a hash- > table approach, the two definitions would be in the same (chained) > bucket, because they have the same name. Definitions with different > names end up in different buckets, and therefore, the ordering can be > unknown to the system. > I have difficulty with the notion of a Forth system which retains no memory of the compilation order of distinctly named words. If a wordlist contains the two words CHICKEN and EGG, I should be able to determine which compiled first. As a programmer, this is valuable information since it tells me whether one word potentially references another. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 13:14 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <kYOdnXhxEfTSLazSnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #9443 |
On 2/7/12 12:47 PM, Krishna Myneni wrote: > On Feb 7, 1:43 pm, Bernd Paysan<bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Krishna Myneni wrote: >>> I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the >>> most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not >>> all, Forth systems work? >> >> FIND will always find the most recent definition, but then, with a hash- >> table approach, the two definitions would be in the same (chained) >> bucket, because they have the same name. Definitions with different >> names end up in different buckets, and therefore, the ordering can be >> unknown to the system. >> > > I have difficulty with the notion of a Forth system which retains no > memory of the compilation order of distinctly named words. If a > wordlist contains the two words CHICKEN and EGG, I should be able to > determine which compiled first. As a programmer, this is valuable > information since it tells me whether one word potentially references > another. So do I. I expect they all can do this, at least within certain parameters. What I don't know is how much variation there is in *how* they do it. Perhaps some can only report the order within a wordlist, while others can report the order of all words regardless of wordlist. Some probably don't have wordlists. The problem with mandating something is that you first have to know what systems are going to be affected by the mandate and how. 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 | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-08 18:00 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <14767455-aa3e-40ae-9e1b-8e88a2155ee7@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9446 |
On Feb 7, 5:14 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote: > On 2/7/12 12:47 PM, Krishna Myneni wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:43 pm, Bernd Paysan<bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Krishna Myneni wrote: > >>> I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > >>> most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > >>> all, Forth systems work? > > >> FIND will always find the most recent definition, but then, with a hash- > >> table approach, the two definitions would be in the same (chained) > >> bucket, because they have the same name. Definitions with different > >> names end up in different buckets, and therefore, the ordering can be > >> unknown to the system. > > > I have difficulty with the notion of a Forth system which retains no > > memory of the compilation order of distinctly named words. If a > > wordlist contains the two words CHICKEN and EGG, I should be able to > > determine which compiled first. As a programmer, this is valuable > > information since it tells me whether one word potentially references > > another. > > So do I. I expect they all can do this, at least within certain > parameters. What I don't know is how much variation there is in *how* > they do it. Perhaps some can only report the order within a wordlist, > while others can report the order of all words regardless of wordlist. > Some probably don't have wordlists. The problem with mandating something > is that you first have to know what systems are going to be affected by > the mandate and how. > Well, for the moment, we are only discussing ordering in relation to the proposed word, TRAVERSE-WORDLIST. This implies that the Forth systems either provide distinct wordlists, or a single wordlist. The suggested traversal order would only apply to a specified wordlist (or to the single one, in which case the wid might be a dummy arg). So, the question boils down to whether or not Forth systems which provide wordlists, or no wordlists but a single dictionary space, can implement the compilation order traversal without undue complexity? Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-08 19:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <64147081-ccc7-43cb-b69b-602cfd075a03@pq6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9477 |
On Feb 8, 9:00 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > So, > the question boils down to whether or not Forth systems which provide > wordlists, or no wordlists but a single dictionary space, can > implement the compilation order traversal without undue complexity? One other point that may be raised is efficiency. Supposed that a system can traverse a wordlist, and can determine the relative order between two dictionary entries by inspection of the two nt's. This is likely a larger class of systems than those that can guarantee that each traversal . Then by traversing the wordlist once, it is possible to find the most recently defined item, and then execute xt-node on that nt. By traversing it again and retaining the first result, it is possible to find second most recently defined item, and then execute the xt-node on that nt. And so forth. Of course, this is an n^2 process. For the same class of systems, but if we assume sufficient heap space, a traversal can harvest a list of nt's in the system and then those nt's can be compared by the function that determines definition order and sorted by a sort that is more efficient than n^2. Then once its sorted, the nt's can be fed to the xt-node in turn. In any case, however, where the most recently defined sequence is not the native traversal order, the native order is more efficient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-07 15:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <e3ea1e5b-44c2-4514-a535-eb6b45502c49@s7g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9443 |
On Feb 7, 10:47 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Feb 7, 1:43 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Krishna Myneni wrote: > > > I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > > > most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > > > all, Forth systems work? > > > FIND will always find the most recent definition, but then, with a hash- > > table approach, the two definitions would be in the same (chained) > > bucket, because they have the same name. Definitions with different > > names end up in different buckets, and therefore, the ordering can be > > unknown to the system. > > I have difficulty with the notion of a Forth system which retains no > memory of the compilation order of distinctly named words. If a > wordlist contains the two words CHICKEN and EGG, I should be able to > determine which compiled first. As a programmer, this is valuable > information since it tells me whether one word potentially references > another. > > Krishna Then in some systems every word would need a "timestamp" (a unique ascending counter for instance), since CHICKEN and EGG may be compiled in different data spaces; for instance, those with multiple areas like Win32Forth. A simple arithmetic test of an address won't work. This strikes me as an unnecessarily complex requirement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-08 18:07 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <70866431-043c-4098-ad2c-18b23571ff28@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9448 |
On Feb 7, 5:17 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 10:47 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 1:43 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > Krishna Myneni wrote: > > > > I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > > > > most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > > > > all, Forth systems work? > > > > FIND will always find the most recent definition, but then, with a hash- > > > table approach, the two definitions would be in the same (chained) > > > bucket, because they have the same name. Definitions with different > > > names end up in different buckets, and therefore, the ordering can be > > > unknown to the system. > > > I have difficulty with the notion of a Forth system which retains no > > memory of the compilation order of distinctly named words. If a > > wordlist contains the two words CHICKEN and EGG, I should be able to > > determine which compiled first. As a programmer, this is valuable > > information since it tells me whether one word potentially references > > another. > > > Krishna > > Then in some systems every word would need a "timestamp" (a unique > ascending counter for instance), since CHICKEN and EGG may be compiled > in different data spaces; for instance, those with multiple areas like > Win32Forth. A simple arithmetic test of an address won't work. This > strikes me as an unnecessarily complex requirement. What's a data space? The primary argument I have in favor of this requirement is that being able to perform compilation order traversal within a single wordlist provides useful information to the Forth user/ programmer about possible relationships between words. If it is easy to implement such a feature in any given Forth system, which presently lacks it, then is it an unnecessarily complex requirement? Can you say something about how complex it might be to implement a memory of compilation order within a wordlist in Win32Forth? However, it may be that my case for such a feature isn't convincing to a number of system implementors. If so, the proposed TRAVERSE-WORDLIST without guaranteed traversal order is still useful, and should be considered. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-08 19:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <7978a846-2acf-4ccc-92f7-0ef2850bfaf0@g4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9478 |
On Feb 8, 9:07 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > The primary argument I have in favor of this > requirement is that being able to perform compilation order traversal > within a single wordlist provides useful information to the Forth > user/programmer about possible relationships between words. > If it is easy to implement such a feature in any given Forth system, > which presently lacks it, then is it an unnecessarily complex > requirement? But is it easy? There is no requirement in Forth94 to retain any information about the definition order *except* in a case of a name clash, where the most recently defined word must be the one that is found. The report regarding gforth was that it was not *complex* to add, but you couldn't add it into an already defined kernel after the fact, since it was added by adding a compilation order link field to the directory structure. That is the distinction: pragmatically, in order to be able to meet the requirements of FIND, a wordlist needs to be able to be traversed, but it need not be able to be traversed in order of most recently defined to least recently defined, and the more mature systems take full advantage of that fact when they implemented hashed dictionary searches. So without the strict reverse order of definition requirement, it seems likely to be a matter of putting together existing implementation-specific capabilities to traverse the implementation- specific dictionary model in most if not all cases. With the strict reverse order of definition requirement, it seems likely to require extending the structure of dictionary entries to include a link field. > If so, the proposed TRAVERSE-WORDLIST without guaranteed > traversal order is still useful, and should be considered. I'd reverse that: get up the less restrictive standard, then put together some tools that use TRAVERSE-WORDLIST that have an implementation dependency on sequential traversal, and see how compelling those tools are in terms of inducing implementers to support that dependency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-02-09 01:14 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <3d109228-c314-4760-9774-77ab3912c82c@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9478 |
On Feb 9, 2:07 am, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Feb 7, 5:17 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 10:47 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 1:43 pm, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > Krishna Myneni wrote: > > > > > I can't see where it says in the spec that FIND should always find the > > > > > most recent definition of a word, but, isn't this the way most, if not > > > > > all, Forth systems work? > > > > > FIND will always find the most recent definition, but then, with a hash- > > > > table approach, the two definitions would be in the same (chained) > > > > bucket, because they have the same name. Definitions with different > > > > names end up in different buckets, and therefore, the ordering can be > > > > unknown to the system. > > > > I have difficulty with the notion of a Forth system which retains no > > > memory of the compilation order of distinctly named words. If a > > > wordlist contains the two words CHICKEN and EGG, I should be able to > > > determine which compiled first. As a programmer, this is valuable > > > information since it tells me whether one word potentially references > > > another. > > > > Krishna > > > Then in some systems every word would need a "timestamp" (a unique > > ascending counter for instance), since CHICKEN and EGG may be compiled > > in different data spaces; for instance, those with multiple areas like > > Win32Forth. A simple arithmetic test of an address won't work. This > > strikes me as an unnecessarily complex requirement. > > What's a data space? The primary argument I have in favor of this > requirement is that being able to perform compilation order traversal > within a single wordlist provides useful information to the Forth user/ > programmer about possible relationships between words. If it is easy > to implement such a feature in any given Forth system, which presently > lacks it, then is it an unnecessarily complex requirement? Can you say > something about how complex it might be to implement a memory of > compilation order within a wordlist in Win32Forth? However, it may be > that my case for such a feature isn't convincing to a number of system > implementors. If so, the proposed TRAVERSE-WORDLIST without guaranteed > traversal order is still useful, and should be considered. > > Krishna A visual might help. In Win32Forth, there are several memory blocks where data can be placed. For a single wordlist, we could have defined ABCDE, laid out in memory as block 1: A C E block 2: B D Without some indication of when the word was defined, retrieving ABCDE isn't possible; ACE BD is the best we can do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-23 10:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <b841b682-0558-4986-9d9a-963890fc0814@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9165 |
On Jan 23, 5:56 pm, Krishna Myneni <krishna.myn...@ccreweb.org> wrote: > On Jan 23, 11:25 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > ... > > > > > Proposal > > -------- > > > TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS > > > Traverse the wordlist wid in no specific or guaranteed order, > > executing the user-specified word > > > xt-node ( x*i nt -- x'*i u ) > > > ... > > Can you comment on why traversal does not guarantee any specific > order? Is it impossible to achieve an ordered traversal, for example, > in the reverse order of addition to the wordlist, under some > implementations? An ordered traversal seems more useful to me. > > Krishna Win32Forth can present nodes in time order of addition for some wordlists, as the addresses ascend from low to high in the dictionary. However, it's not necessary that wordlists are in memory, since the defining, searching and iteration are abstracted out in a wordlist "object", and could be, for instance, kept as a hash table, an SQL database, a node-server, or a combination of these. As Andrew notes, it could be hard to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-23 22:15 +0400 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <87ipk2475j.fsf@inbox.ru> |
| In reply to | #9164 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: > Proposal > -------- > > TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS This has drawback of lumping iterators over name tokens and name tokens together. Thus any programmer who performs operations over name tokens has to deal with iterators potentially running in parallel. While the proposed way may have some benefits like simplistic implementation, such implementations are unnecessarily restrictive. -- HE CE3OH...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-23 10:43 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <2e9b0e58-51db-44d5-b78d-737357b848b8@c9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9167 |
On Jan 23, 6:15 pm, Aleksej Saushev <a...@inbox.ru> wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > > Proposal > > -------- > > > TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS > > This has drawback of lumping iterators over name tokens and name tokens > together. Thus any programmer who performs operations over name tokens > has to deal with iterators potentially running in parallel. While the > proposed way may have some benefits like simplistic implementation, > such implementations are unnecessarily restrictive. Do you mean multi-tasking? Current wordlist operations are necessarily atomic, q.v. FIND, and the same could be specified for TRAVERSE- WORDLIST. From the spec; D.6.11 Multiprogramming impact In the sense that any application that depends on multiprogramming must consist of at least two tasks that share some resource(s) and communicate between themselves, Forth 83 did not contain enough information to enable writing of a standard program that DEPENDED on multiprogramming. This is also true of ANS Forth. > > -- > HE CE3OH...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 10:09 +0400 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <87lioxzl5w.fsf@inbox.ru> |
| In reply to | #9171 |
Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: > On Jan 23, 6:15 pm, Aleksej Saushev <a...@inbox.ru> wrote: >> Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: >> > Proposal >> > -------- >> >> > TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS >> >> This has drawback of lumping iterators over name tokens and name tokens >> together. Thus any programmer who performs operations over name tokens >> has to deal with iterators potentially running in parallel. While the >> proposed way may have some benefits like simplistic implementation, >> such implementations are unnecessarily restrictive. > > Do you mean multi-tasking? Current wordlist operations are necessarily > atomic, q.v. FIND, and the same could be specified for TRAVERSE- > WORDLIST. This severely limits what can be done during traversal. Unfinished traversals happen when you work on mobile phone: you create iterator, look at head of wordlist, do something, then move further down the list. If you want "atomic" traversal then it is easier and simpler to implement it in Lisp or Smalltalk style: make it accept xt that processes wordlist entry and returns boolean flag if iteration should go on. In this case if you want to suspend traversal, you do it straight: capture continuation (any way you like it, as continuation or as coroutine), invoke traversal, suspend continuation, do something else, resume traversal. You can simplify it even further: avoid flag and let programmer finish iterator prematurely with exceptions. Of course, it is damn convenient, but at least one doesn't have to implement wordlist in one particular way some standardizer decided upon. > From the spec; > > D.6.11 Multiprogramming impact > > In the sense that any application that depends on multiprogramming > must consist of at least two tasks that share some resource(s) and > communicate between themselves, Forth 83 did not contain enough > information to enable writing of a standard program that DEPENDED on > multiprogramming. This is also true of ANS Forth. -- HE CE3OH...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-23 22:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <b8d8fc64-e7a3-426a-962c-4417ac1b6561@nu6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9190 |
On Jan 24, 6:09 am, Aleksej Saushev <a...@inbox.ru> wrote: > Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > > On Jan 23, 6:15 pm, Aleksej Saushev <a...@inbox.ru> wrote: > >> Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> writes: > >> > Proposal > >> > -------- > > >> > TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS > > >> This has drawback of lumping iterators over name tokens and name tokens > >> together. Thus any programmer who performs operations over name tokens > >> has to deal with iterators potentially running in parallel. While the > >> proposed way may have some benefits like simplistic implementation, > >> such implementations are unnecessarily restrictive. > > > Do you mean multi-tasking? Current wordlist operations are necessarily > > atomic, q.v. FIND, and the same could be specified for TRAVERSE- > > WORDLIST. > > This severely limits what can be done during traversal. Unfinished > traversals happen when you work on mobile phone: you create iterator, > look at head of wordlist, do something, then move further down the list. > > If you want "atomic" traversal then it is easier and simpler to implement > it in Lisp or Smalltalk style: make it accept xt that processes > wordlist entry and returns boolean flag if iteration should go on. > In this case if you want to suspend traversal, you do it straight: > capture continuation (any way you like it, as continuation or as coroutine), > invoke traversal, suspend continuation, do something else, resume traversal. > > You can simplify it even further: avoid flag and let programmer > finish iterator prematurely with exceptions. Of course, it is damn > convenient, but at least one doesn't have to implement wordlist in one > particular way some standardizer decided upon. I might be wrong, but I don't see this as anything other than a systems programming tool; the RfD is for the TOOLS wordset. Isn't what you've described above an application technique? > > > From the spec; > > > D.6.11 Multiprogramming impact > > > In the sense that any application that depends on multiprogramming > > must consist of at least two tasks that share some resource(s) and > > communicate between themselves, Forth 83 did not contain enough > > information to enable writing of a standard program that DEPENDED on > > multiprogramming. This is also true of ANS Forth. > > -- > HE CE3OH...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 10:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <4f1e818f.411056800@192.168.0.50> |
| In reply to | #9192 |
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:19:29 -0800 (PST), Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: >I might be wrong, but I don't see this as anything other than a >systems programming tool; the RfD is for the TOOLS wordset. Isn't what >you've described above an application technique? One of the joys of Forth is that you can, and do, use system tools as part of an application. I confess that I find the signature > TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS rather clumsy. The common case is ( xt wid -- ) so stick with that and push the problems to the rare case. Similarly, let the signature of xt be nt -- u even if the occasional use of a variable (gasp, shock, horror) is required. Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 06:53 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <4a8b82c1-4c60-43ac-9848-9100be7ca3c6@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9196 |
On Jan 24, 10:11 am, stephen...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:19:29 -0800 (PST), Alex McDonald > > <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >I might be wrong, but I don't see this as anything other than a > >systems programming tool; the RfD is for the TOOLS wordset. Isn't what > >you've described above an application technique? > > One of the joys of Forth is that you can, and do, use system tools as > part of an application. Very much so. Using wordlists as Aleksej suggests way would appear to require, at the very least, an understanding of how they are implemented on the Forth system in use, and I can think of a good few reasons why using wordlists as specified in the standard like this is Not A Good Idea. ACID for one; just walking or traversing structures that change is a non-trivial exercise even when you understand the structure in question. More pertinent and as you've stated quite clearly, before you can standardise, you need common practice. There is existing practice for a TRAVERSE-WORDLIST that operates as proposed, but none presented so far that supports the case for an atomic wordlist iterator with continuations. > > I confess that I find the signature> TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS > > rather clumsy. The common case is > ( xt wid -- ) > so stick with that and push the problems to the rare case. Similarly, > let the signature of xt be > nt -- u > even if the occasional use of a variable (gasp, shock, horror) is > required. I'll redraft. There's no change or loss of functionality in a change to the signature. I'm more concerned about the requirement to present duplicated words in a given node order. > > Stephen > > -- > Stephen Pelc, stephen...@mpeforth.com > MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time > 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England > tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 > web:http://www.mpeforth.com- free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 10:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <98b4b1d5-b356-4d63-825c-3056b2446a78@o20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9198 |
On Jan 24, 9:53 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 10:11 am, stephen...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote: >> I confess that I find the signature >>> TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS >> rather clumsy. The common case is >> ( xt wid -- ) >> so stick with that and push the problems to the rare case. >> Similarly, let the signature of xt be >> nt -- u >> even if the occasional use of a variable (gasp, shock, horror) is >> required. > I'll redraft. There's no change or loss of functionality in a change > to the signature. As I understand from the remark "use of a variable ... is required", there is a loss of functionality ~ the xt cannot operate on additional information on the stack, as in: : .name< ( ca u nt -- ca u flag ) nt>name 2OVER 2OVER S< IF TYPE ELSE DROP THEN TRUE ; ... since under the modified signature, the TRAVERSE-WORDLIST word is free to be using the stack underneath the nt for its own purposes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-24 11:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: RfD: TRAVERSE-WORDLIST proposal |
| Message-ID | <6f723688-ed9d-477d-a69a-364eaad47d5e@pj4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #9202 |
On Jan 24, 6:42 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Jan 24, 9:53 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 24, 10:11 am, stephen...@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote: > >> I confess that I find the signature > >>> TRAVERSE-WORDLIST ( x*i xt-node wid -- x'*i nt ) TOOLS > >> rather clumsy. The common case is > >> ( xt wid -- ) > >> so stick with that and push the problems to the rare case. > >> Similarly, let the signature of xt be > >> nt -- u > >> even if the occasional use of a variable (gasp, shock, horror) is > >> required. > > I'll redraft. There's no change or loss of functionality in a change > > to the signature. > > As I understand from the remark "use of a variable ... is required", > there is a loss of functionality ~ the xt cannot operate on additional > information on the stack, as in: > > : .name< ( ca u nt -- ca u flag ) > nt>name 2OVER 2OVER S< IF TYPE ELSE DROP THEN TRUE ; > > ... since under the modified signature, the TRAVERSE-WORDLIST word is > free to be using the stack underneath the nt for its own purposes. On reflection, I agree. There's no standard way of indicating stack immutability without having some form of signature as originally shown. In fact, I've found a use of the word in my code that passes a wordlist and several other parameters on the stack to moves selected words from one WID to another.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web