Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10270 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 222 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 15:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-21 10:37 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:34 -0500
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-26 20:40 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 15:00 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-27 02:20 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 08:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:08 +0200
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:31 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 09:35 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 11:47 -0500
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-27 12:33 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 11:24 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 17:07 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-27 00:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 14:09 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-21 15:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-21 20:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 16:36 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:47 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 15:19 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-23 07:48 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-23 17:28 +0000
Re: Which standard? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-03-23 20:51 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-24 00:47 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 08:40 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 04:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 19:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 13:03 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 19:20 +0100
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-03-22 21:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 17:54 -0400
Re: Which standard? "The Other Rod Pemberton" <dontaskdonttell@pemberton.it> - 2012-03-23 18:12 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 20:39 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:05 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 09:15 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 22:52 -1000
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-24 10:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-24 11:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 21:46 -0700
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-27 02:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-23 23:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-26 01:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-22 14:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-23 12:48 +0100
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 17:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 13:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-21 17:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-22 09:27 +0100
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-22 12:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 19:19 -0400
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-22 08:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 08:25 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:10 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-24 11:19 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 07:55 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:12 +0000
Re: Which standard? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 04:06 -0700
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 21:03 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 22:28 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-21 16:36 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 05:15 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-22 12:16 +0000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-23 01:26 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-22 15:37 -1000
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-25 22:24 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-26 10:49 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 20:00 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:21 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 18:51 +0200
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:16 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 13:21 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 01:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-23 16:06 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:44 +0100
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-03-24 10:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:31 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 11:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:25 -0400
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 01:43 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-24 15:56 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:50 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-25 09:18 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 06:07 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 22:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 09:04 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-26 04:39 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 22:29 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-26 18:09 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 11:37 -0700
Re: Which standard? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-26 20:49 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-26 13:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-27 11:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-03-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-29 00:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-03-30 16:13 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-30 13:01 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-30 09:18 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-31 08:18 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:43 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 10:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 08:22 -1000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-10 14:03 -0500
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-10 12:17 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-10 09:26 -1000
Re: Which standard? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-11 06:22 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-11 12:42 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 09:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-11 11:28 -0500
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 15:30 -0700
Re: Which standard? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-04-27 23:34 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-28 04:13 -0500
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 00:10 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 12:53 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 01:06 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-28 13:43 -1000
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 11:23 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 04:35 -0500
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-29 12:01 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 05:17 -0500
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:01 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-29 20:17 +0200
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:18 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 08:36 -1000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:57 -0700
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:48 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-29 13:38 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 14:33 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 07:33 -1000
Re: Which standard? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-04-30 19:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-29 10:36 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-29 11:40 -0500
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-30 16:59 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-05-01 07:38 +0100
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-01 09:36 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-02 10:30 +0000
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-05-02 08:33 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:07 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 11:50 -0700
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-30 15:27 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-30 13:39 -1000
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-05-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-05-03 11:26 -0700
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-05-03 09:16 -1000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-05-04 12:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-05-03 14:27 -0500
Re: Which standard? Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> - 2012-05-04 01:56 +0100
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-05-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:18 -0400
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 07:35 -0400
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-29 23:56 +0000
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 16:43 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 08:09 -0400
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 10:27 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-30 06:19 -0700
Re: Which standard? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-04-30 07:49 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-28 16:23 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-10 12:38 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-27 14:15 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-27 23:47 +0200
Re: Which standard? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-27 12:04 -1000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-04-29 16:10 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-30 13:08 +0000
Re: Which standard? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-03 09:27 +0000
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-04-10 12:44 +0000
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-05-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Which standard? Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 05:47 -0400
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-24 15:07 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 05:44 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 19:54 +0100
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 21:52 -0400
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 12:13 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 06:24 -0500
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-24 12:20 -0500
Re: Which standard? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-24 17:24 -0400
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 22:33 +0100
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-26 03:25 +0200
Re: Which standard? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Which standard? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-22 04:15 -0500
Re: Which standard? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-22 13:02 +0100
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-26 22:14 -0700
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-26 23:55 -0700
Re: Which standard? Helmar Wodtke <helmwo@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 05:41 -0700
Re: Which standard? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-27 08:45 -0700
Re: Which standard? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-03-28 01:42 +0200
Re: Which standard? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-31 13:46 +0000
Re: Which standard? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-27 22:51 -0700
Re: Which standard? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-27 19:33 -0700
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-01 09:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f9fe6cd$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #11797 |
On 5/1/12 2:38 AM, Peter Knaggs wrote: > I did argue for reserving NOT in the '94 document but was drowned out > by the chorus of "let's not go there again". We have the technology to handle this situation, don't we? If today one wants to use NOT in a program, then just include a one-line prelude along with any other preludes such as DECIMAL, FORTH DEFINITIONS, etc.: SYNONYM NOT 0= \ or SYNONYM NOT INVERT So no code is broken in the interim while the community is put on notice that the word NOT will eventually be solidified (synonym declaration not required) to a single definition in the ANS standard. The downside is needing to check for prelude declarations when reading someone else's code in the interim. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-02 10:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m3e57j.luk@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #11800 |
In article <4f9fe6cd$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote: >On 5/1/12 2:38 AM, Peter Knaggs wrote: > >> I did argue for reserving NOT in the '94 document but was drowned out >> by the chorus of "let's not go there again". > >We have the technology to handle this situation, don't we? If today one >wants to use NOT in a program, then just include a one-line prelude >along with any other preludes such as DECIMAL, FORTH DEFINITIONS, etc.: > >SYNONYM NOT 0= \ or SYNONYM NOT INVERT > >So no code is broken in the interim while the community is put on notice >that the word NOT will eventually be solidified (synonym declaration not >required) to a single definition in the ANS standard. That breaks my code. I don't have synonym in ciforth. I don't want it in the kernel. There is a solution: just start the Forth program with WANT SYNONYM then ciforth will fetch synonym from it library. ;-) > >The downside is needing to check for prelude declarations when reading >someone else's code in the interim. My solution in ciforth is better. If compiled with the -t option unknown words are loaded from a library by the compiler. Any solution where tested code has to be modified is to be rejected. Conditional compilation is only marginally acceptable, for unlike with huge c-compilers conditional compilation may not be available on small systems. E.g. it is not on the launchpad MSP430 Forth. > >-Doug 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 | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-02 08:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4fa12997$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #11819 |
On 5/2/12 6:30 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote: > Doug Hoffman<glidedog@gmail.com> wrote: >> If today one >> wants to use NOT in a program, then just include a one-line prelude >> along with any other preludes such as DECIMAL, FORTH DEFINITIONS, etc.: >> >> SYNONYM NOT 0= \ or SYNONYM NOT INVERT >> >> So no code is broken in the interim while the community is put on notice >> that the word NOT will eventually be solidified (synonym declaration not >> required) to a single definition in the ANS standard. > > That breaks my code. I don't have synonym in ciforth. I don't want > it in the kernel. > There is a solution: > just start the Forth program with > > WANT SYNONYM > > then ciforth will fetch synonym from it library. ;-) Sure, that or the equivalent should work for (almost?) everyone. >> >> The downside is needing to check for prelude declarations when reading >> someone else's code in the interim. > > My solution in ciforth is better. If compiled with the -t option > unknown words are loaded from a library by the compiler. > Any solution where tested code has to be modified is to be rejected. > > Conditional compilation is only marginally acceptable, for unlike with > huge c-compilers conditional compilation may not be available on small > systems. > E.g. it is not on the launchpad MSP430 Forth. Perfection is hard to achieve. Meanwhile both bit-wise and cell-wise logical NOT use remains unsatisfactory. Meaningful names are important. INVERT is 0= liked for bit-wise and 0= is 0= liked for cell-wise. Further, a cell-wise XOR does 0= exist. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-02 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012May2.160740@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #11789 |
stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:59:27 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
>(Anton Ertl) wrote:
>
>>stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>>The problem is that nobody (including MPE) removed their version
>>>of NOT from their implementations - it was perfectly legal to
>>>leave it in.
>>
>>Gforth never contained NOT, but then we only started after it was
>>clear that NOT was not in ANS Forth.
>>
>>>I have long believed that marking words as obsolete is not enough.
>>
>>NOT was not made obsolete. It is not in Forth-94 at all.
>
>I think that you are missing the point.
>
>Words that the TC (or community) believe should die out, e.g. NOT or
>FORGET, need to be marked in such a way that implementers make an
>effort to remove them. If we don't do this, there will be discussions
>about NOT in another twenty years, nearly forty years after NOT was
>removed from a standards document.
My guess is that, if we do this, there will also be discussions about
NOT in another twenty years, with slightly different content. That's
because people would like to have NOT as a standard word
(unfortunately without consensus on what it should mean). Note that
the current discussion did not come about because of NOT in some
specific systems, so the absence of NOT in every system would not have
prevented it.
Also, I think that preventing discussions about a word is an extremely
weak reason for a change in the standard.
>>One approach would have been to mark NOT as reserved word name, so
>>that systems providing NOT would be non-standard. That might have
>>cooled the usage down enough to allow re-standardization now, but OTOH
>>there would then be no common practice.
>
>I agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, lack
>of common practice (as opposed to common name) indicates lack of
>need.
There would be common practice for using 0= and INVERT, and for
aliasing NOT as one of them, but no common practice for which one to
alias with.
>It really does not matter what NOT "ought" to mean. In the current
>situation, using that name is irresponsible for portability.
That's because there is no consensus on what it ought to mean.
Maybe a solution would be to define NOT only for well-formed flags,
and to require systems to produce an error for other arguments for now
(but programs must not rely on that), i.e.:
: NOT ( f1 -- f2 )
dup 0= over invert <> -12 and throw \ argument type mismatch
invert ; \ or 0=, same result
- 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 | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9ca1e16-8088-4ba9-b94f-e7b7a319f7d8@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11779 |
On Apr 30, 9:59 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: > IMO the current approach works quite well: 0= is very explicit about > its meaning, and INVERT, too (to a lesser degree, though). Why use > NOT? For precisely the same purpose as NOT ~ that NOT is often more expressive ~ while at the same time avoiding bickering from the bit- operator patrol.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 15:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xr4v4rh38.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #11779 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > IMO the current approach works quite well: 0= is very explicit about > its meaning, and INVERT, too (to a lesser degree, though). Why use NOT? 0= seems to rely on a coincidence of data representation. INVERT sounds like 1/x or something of that sort. I would have preferred COMPLEMENT, but I guess it's too late for that now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 13:39 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Xv-dnRODxqEhvwLSnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11794 |
On 4/30/12 12:27 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >> IMO the current approach works quite well: 0= is very explicit about >> its meaning, and INVERT, too (to a lesser degree, though). Why use NOT? > > 0= seems to rely on a coincidence of data representation. INVERT > sounds like 1/x or something of that sort. I would have preferred > COMPLEMENT, but I guess it's too late for that now. Use of 0= is consistent with NOT's original intended use as a preamble to IF, WHILE, or UNTIL. Since these words take any non-zero bits to indicate TRUE, a simple test for zero gives the appropriate result. 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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-02 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012May2.162425@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #11794 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> IMO the current approach works quite well: 0= is very explicit about
>> its meaning, and INVERT, too (to a lesser degree, though). Why use NOT?
>
>0= seems to rely on a coincidence of data representation.
0= expresses exactly what is done (and required) if you don't know
that the value is a well-formed flag. If the value is guaranteed to
be a well-formed flag, you can use INVERT if you don't like 0=.
- 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 | Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-03 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jnueik$pva$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11794 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > > IMO the current approach works quite well: 0= is very explicit about > > its meaning, and INVERT, too (to a lesser degree, though). Why use NOT? > > 0= seems to rely on a coincidence of data representation.[...] I am sure you remember (0==) from Haskell. The 0= in Forth does the same thing. It is a contraction of 0 = . There are similar contractions like 1+ , 1- , 2* , 2/ . So it is quite common in Forth. -- Marc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-03 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xsjfhf7el.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #11869 |
Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes: > I am sure you remember (0==) from Haskell. The 0= in Forth does the > same thing. It is a contraction of 0 = . "if 0" instead of "if False" would be a type error in Haskell since 0 is an integer and not a Bool. (0==) or 0 = is fine if you're trying to compare an integer to the integer 0. Forth presses integers into double duty as booleans resulting in this kludge. C and Python used to do the same thing, but both fixed the deficiency later. Algol included booleans even back in the 1950's, I believe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-03 09:16 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <W_WdnWRLW8zsRD_SnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11879 |
On 5/3/12 8:26 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Marc Olschok<nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes: >> I am sure you remember (0==) from Haskell. The 0= in Forth does the >> same thing. It is a contraction of 0 = . > > "if 0" instead of "if False" would be a type error in Haskell since 0 is > an integer and not a Bool. (0==) or 0 = is fine if you're trying to > compare an integer to the integer 0. Forth presses integers into double > duty as booleans resulting in this kludge. C and Python used to do the > same thing, but both fixed the deficiency later. Algol included > booleans even back in the 1950's, I believe. Forth is not a strongly typed language (you've probably noticed). Forthers consider this an asset, not a "kludge". Just a different way of thinking about things. Cheers, Elizbeth -- ================================================== 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 | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-04 12:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m3i1al.8dv@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #11887 |
In article <W_WdnWRLW8zsRD_SnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@supernews.com>, Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote: >On 5/3/12 8:26 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Marc Olschok<nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes: >>> I am sure you remember (0==) from Haskell. The 0= in Forth does the >>> same thing. It is a contraction of 0 = . >> >> "if 0" instead of "if False" would be a type error in Haskell since 0 is >> an integer and not a Bool. (0==) or 0 = is fine if you're trying to >> compare an integer to the integer 0. Forth presses integers into double >> duty as booleans resulting in this kludge. C and Python used to do the >> same thing, but both fixed the deficiency later. Algol included >> booleans even back in the 1950's, I believe. > >Forth is not a strongly typed language (you've probably noticed). >Forthers consider this an asset, not a "kludge". Just a different way of >thinking about things. And besides, there is nothing wrong with IF taking an int, as is specified in the Forth language and in the Python language. Rubin speaks of Algol 68. In Algol 68 "if" creates a 'meek context', that means that after "if" a boolean expression is not required, as Rubin suggests. This is what meek means: If the compiler knows that it is a reference to a boolean it is automatically dereferenced, and if it is a procedure yielding a boolean it is automatically called. In Forth terms Algol 68 adds a @ or an EXECUTE automatically. It is just a matter of how a language is defined. (Automatic conversion from int to bool would not be nice in the framework of Algol68). > >Cheers, >Elizbeth > Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-03 14:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <aJOdnc4ava-YQT_SnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #11879 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes: >> I am sure you remember (0==) from Haskell. The 0= in Forth does the >> same thing. It is a contraction of 0 = . > > "if 0" instead of "if False" would be a type error in Haskell since > 0 is an integer and not a Bool. (0==) or 0 = is fine if you're > trying to compare an integer to the integer 0. Forth presses > integers into double duty as booleans resulting in this kludge. C > and Python used to do the same thing, but both fixed the deficiency > later. I don't know about Python, but C's if hasn't changed at all. C's bool (aka _Bool) is just an integer type large enough to store the values 0 and 1. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Coombs <jan_2011-02@murray-microft.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-04 01:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lK6dnb3IF6jVtD7SnZ2dnUVZ7qidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #11888 |
On 03/05/12 20:27, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Marc Olschok<nobody@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>>> I am sure you remember (0==) from Haskell. The 0= in Forth does the
>>> same thing. It is a contraction of 0 = .
>>
>> "if 0" instead of "if False" would be a type error in Haskell since
>> 0 is an integer and not a Bool. (0==) or 0 = is fine if you're
>> trying to compare an integer to the integer 0. Forth presses
>> integers into double duty as booleans resulting in this kludge. C
>> and Python used to do the same thing, but both fixed the deficiency
>> later.
>
> I don't know about Python, but C's if hasn't changed at all. C's bool
> (aka _Bool) is just an integer type large enough to store the values 0
> and 1.
Similarly in Python, "Booleans are a subtype of integers."[1]
Interestingly, the length of True is 1, but the length of False is
zero.
Also, "Any object can be tested for truth value, for use in an if
or while condition or as operand of the Boolean operations below.
The following values are considered false:
None, False
zero of any numeric type, for example, 0, 0.0, 0j.
any empty sequence, for example, '', (), [].
any empty mapping, for example, {}.
...
The default integer type for Python and C is unsigned, as this
makes True = +1 Since the size of Python's integer is
unconstrained, it is a pity that the integer type in not signed,
removing ambiguity. Then the boolean False would be -1.
A small similarity between Forth and Python is that functions may
have multiple return values.
Jan Coombs
--
[1] http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/stdtypes.html
jan@T60:~$ python
Python 2.7.2+ (default, Oct 4 2011, 20:03:08)
[GCC 4.6.1] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> False==0
True
>>> True==1
True
>>> int.bit_length(True)
1
>>> int.bit_length(False)
0
>>> sys.maxint
2147483647
>>> sys.maxint + 1
2147483648L
>>> q,r = divmod(10,3)
>>> q,r
(3, 1)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-05-04 06:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1791e270-f68b-4dc1-95e6-8d1ef3dee6e8@2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11898 |
On May 3, 8:56 pm, Jan Coombs <jan_2011...@murray-microft.co.uk> wrote: > Similarly in Python, "Booleans are a subtype of integers."[1] > Interestingly, the length of True is 1, but the length of False is > zero. Yes, and then there's Forth, where flags and integers are both subtypes of cells.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 07:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f9d2374$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #11727 |
On 4/28/12 7:43 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > See, this is why it can never be resolved, because the whole issue is > how people *think* about this operator: a precursor to IF, UNTIL and > WHILE, or a logical operation. There is at least one Forth that addresses this issue by adding NIF, NUNTIL, and NWHILE. These words do what you expect. Alternatively, one could modify the spelling of (bit-wise logical) NOT to something like NOT? for (cell-wise logical) flags. There is some precedence for this with the words EMIT? and KEY? both returning a conditional flag while EMIT and KEY do something else. In either case INVERT would be retained as a synonym for NOT and for backwards compatibility. I guess this dilemma stems from the bitwise-logical AND and OR being able to do double-duty for control-flow but not so for NOT (clumsy sentence!). It does seem odd that there is no NOT in the standard. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 07:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f9d276b$0$290$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #11740 |
On 4/29/12 7:18 AM, Doug Hoffman wrote: > On 4/28/12 7:43 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> See, this is why it can never be resolved, because the whole issue is >> how people *think* about this operator: a precursor to IF, UNTIL and >> WHILE, or a logical operation. > > There is at least one Forth that addresses this issue by adding NIF, > NUNTIL, and NWHILE. These words do what you expect. > > Alternatively, one could modify the spelling of (bit-wise logical) NOT > to something like NOT? for (cell-wise logical) flags. There is some > precedence for this with the words EMIT? and KEY? both returning a > conditional flag while EMIT and KEY do something else. > > In either case INVERT would be retained as a synonym for NOT and for > backwards compatibility. > > I guess this dilemma stems from the bitwise-logical AND and OR being > able to do double-duty for control-flow but not so for NOT (clumsy > sentence!). > > It does seem odd that there is no NOT in the standard. Haven't we the same problem with (the bitwise logical) XOR ? Perhaps we also need a (cell-wise logical) XOR? for control flow? -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-29 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m39mio.be6@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #11740 |
In article <4f9d2374$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> wrote: >On 4/28/12 7:43 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> See, this is why it can never be resolved, because the whole issue is >> how people *think* about this operator: a precursor to IF, UNTIL and >> WHILE, or a logical operation. > >There is at least one Forth that addresses this issue by adding NIF, >NUNTIL, and NWHILE. These words do what you expect. > >Alternatively, one could modify the spelling of (bit-wise logical) NOT >to something like NOT? for (cell-wise logical) flags. There is some >precedence for this with the words EMIT? and KEY? both returning a >conditional flag while EMIT and KEY do something else. That might be a good idea. NOT? OR? and AND? are guaranteed to leave a well formed flag, while not requiring well formed flags as input. I thought of re-introducing NOT in ciforth, but now I think it is better to call it NOT? . > >In either case INVERT would be retained as a synonym for NOT and for >backwards compatibility. > >I guess this dilemma stems from the bitwise-logical AND and OR being >able to do double-duty for control-flow but not so for NOT (clumsy >sentence!). The double-duty for AND and OR is false economy. Maybe it is time to get away from it. > >It does seem odd that there is no NOT in the standard. There is. 0= serves that purpose. That doesn't make it less odd. > >-Doug > 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 | 2012-04-29 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b1eaaf0-5793-456e-b38c-0267ca6cc692@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #11759 |
On Apr 29, 7:56 pm, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > NOT? OR? and AND? are guaranteed to leave a well formed flag, while not > requiring well formed flags as input. That I like. 0= as NOT? already complies. [UNDEFINED] 0<> [IF] : 0<> ( x -- fl ) 0= 0= ; [THEN] [UNDEFINED] NOT? [IF] : NOT? ( x -- fl ) 0= ; [THEN] [UNDEFINED] OR? [IF] : OR? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) OR 0<> ; [THEN] [UNDEFINED] AND? [IF] : AND? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) 0<> AND 0<> ; [THEN]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-30 08:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4f9e80e5$0$292$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #11761 |
On 4/29/12 7:43 PM, BruceMcF wrote: > On Apr 29, 7:56 pm, Albert van der Horst<alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> > wrote: >> NOT? OR? and AND? are guaranteed to leave a well formed flag, while not >> requiring well formed flags as input. > > That I like. 0= as NOT? already complies. > > [UNDEFINED] 0<> [IF] : 0<> ( x -- fl ) 0= 0= ; [THEN] > [UNDEFINED] NOT? [IF] : NOT? ( x -- fl ) 0= ; [THEN] > [UNDEFINED] OR? [IF] : OR? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) OR 0<> ; [THEN] > [UNDEFINED] AND? [IF] : AND? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) 0<> AND 0<> ; [THEN] Yes. And for a complete set to add to the current standard: [UNDEFINED] NOT [IF] : NOT ( x1 -- x2 ) INVERT ; [THEN] [UNDEFINED] XOR? [IF] : XOR? ( x1 x2 -- fl ) 0= SWAP 0= XOR ; [THEN] Not sure how much of a tear-up this would present to Forths/programmers already using a cell-wise logical NOT. I guess any redefinition is a tear-up. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web