Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #7583 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100 |
| Last post | 2011-11-29 11:19 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 00:18 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-28 15:44 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 09:03 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-11-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 16:16 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2011-11-28 20:30 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-11-28 18:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bee <forth@calcentral.com> - 2011-11-28 19:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-11-29 06:49 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 03:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 11:14 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 09:10 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-30 06:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 08:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-30 01:24 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-01 18:25 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 09:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-02 06:23 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-02 19:40 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-03 00:58 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 18:33 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-02 09:35 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 10:44 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-02 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-03 19:56 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 10:02 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-03 14:56 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-03 19:22 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-03 20:42 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-04 10:42 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-05 14:15 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-04 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 14:23 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 07:05 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Arnold Doray <thinksquared@gmail.com> - 2011-12-06 16:03 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:21 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 14:59 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-08 01:00 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:18 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-07 23:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-08 11:02 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 11:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-08 07:48 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-13 00:20 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-12 06:35 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-12 09:00 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 20:26 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-15 00:53 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-14 10:21 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:42 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 01:49 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 11:20 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 15:21 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 13:05 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-19 21:13 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:45 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-22 08:29 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-21 23:03 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 08:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-23 08:50 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-23 07:01 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-23 08:27 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-24 13:38 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-25 02:37 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 09:08 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-26 12:17 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-27 07:37 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-27 03:48 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 11:03 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-28 08:59 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 04:23 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 14:01 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:03 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 10:40 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 23:16 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 14:25 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 09:51 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-30 08:08 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-31 18:29 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-31 10:54 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 10:20 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 00:41 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 15:43 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 03:22 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-31 16:58 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 15:00 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> - 2012-01-03 09:08 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-01-03 10:28 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 12:11 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2011-12-22 17:39 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 09:13 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 09:26 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 10:39 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-22 12:00 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-22 12:16 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-20 06:44 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-16 07:37 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 19:42 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-16 14:44 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-16 03:25 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-20 12:37 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:32 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-20 13:54 -0800
PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-28 16:37 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 04:55 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 22:23 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:16 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Sieur de Bienville <morrimichael@gmail.com> - 2011-12-29 13:13 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-03 04:51 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 12:12 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-07 23:31 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-07 07:37 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-01-07 16:58 +0100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:53 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:29 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 16:15 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 14:30 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:00 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 15:12 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:53 -0600
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:24 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 18:56 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2012-01-09 16:54 +1100
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-09 01:35 -0800
Re: PFA of a DOES> word BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 12:18 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-15 07:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-06 16:04 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-06 19:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 07:19 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 19:21 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2011-12-07 20:58 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-07 10:39 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-07 23:52 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 12:35 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 09:57 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-08 12:37 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2011-12-05 19:10 -0500
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-08 11:16 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-07 18:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-10 18:05 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-10 09:53 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-10 11:20 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-11 11:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-11 21:25 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-11 13:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-12 12:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 11:12 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-12-02 13:52 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:51 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-30 10:36 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Ed" <nospam@invalid.com> - 2011-11-29 18:29 +1100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-11-28 22:09 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 04:10 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 08:20 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-11-29 06:38 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-29 09:47 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-11-30 05:28 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-29 18:42 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-11-30 08:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-11-30 17:55 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 09:19 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-01 14:28 +0100
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 15:35 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:08 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-11-30 11:09 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 08:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-01 12:19 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-01 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-01 09:10 -1000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-01 21:55 -0800
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-02 16:51 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-02 11:42 -0600
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Is this use of DOES> according to the standard - and portable? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-11-29 11:19 +0000
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 09:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4efd7b45$0$6858$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8445 |
BruceMcF wrote: > On Dec 29, 5:16 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> I know what I'm looking for is there. > > I asked because I'm skeptical that the example that you allude to is > as you imply it is. This is a classic: A.5.1 ANS Forth systems Section 5.1 defines the criteria that a system must meet in order to justify the label “ANS Forth System”. Briefly, the minimum requirement is that the system must “implement” the Core word set. There are several ways in which this requirement may be met. The most obvious is that all Core words may be in a pre-compiled kernel. This is not the only way of satisfying the requirement, however. For example, some words may be provided in source blocks or files with instructions explaining how to add them to the system if they are needed. So long as the words are provided in such a way that the user can obtain access to them with a clear and straightforward procedure, they may be considered to be present. A Forth cross-compiler has many characteristics in common with an ANS Forth System, in that both use similar compiling tools to process a program. However, in order to fully specify an ANS Forth cross compiler it would be necessary to address complex issues dealing with compilation and execution semantics in both host and target environments as well as ROMability issues. The level of effort to do this properly has proved to be impractical at this time. *As a result, although it may be possible for a Forth cross-compiler to correctly prepare an ANS Forth program for execution in a target environment, it is inappropriate for a cross-compiler to be labeled an ANS Forth System.* - Vs. D.5 ANS Forth approach The committee feels that, if ANS Forth prescribes stringent requirements upon the virtual machine model, as did the previous standards, then many implementors will chose not to comply with ANS Forth. *The committee hopes that ANS Forth will serve to unify rather than to further divide the Forth community*, and thus has chosen to encompass rather than invalidate popular implementation techniques. - And: A.3 Usage requirements Similarly, *we will not undertake in this section to tell you how to implement a Forth System*, but rather will provide some guidance as to what the minimum requirements are for systems that can properly claim compliance with this Standard. - Good going! You just disqualified an entire line of Forth tools, as a matter of fact, maybe the most profitable line of Forth tools that ever existed and may even be the only real reason Forth still exists. Just because you were dedicated on insisting on a VM standard instead of a true language standard. See also: D.6 Differences from Forth 83 This is how interpret "breaking". Hans Bezemer BTW, yes, I still need some growing up to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-30 08:08 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Db6dnYljq4acY2DTnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8459 |
On 12/29/11 10:51 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > BruceMcF wrote: > >> On Dec 29, 5:16 pm, Hans Bezemer<theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> I know what I'm looking for is there. >> >> I asked because I'm skeptical that the example that you allude to is >> as you imply it is. > This is a classic: > > A.5.1 ANS Forth systems > Section 5.1 defines the criteria that a system must meet in order to justify > the label “ANS Forth System”. Briefly, the minimum requirement is that the > system must “implement” the Core word set. There are several ways in which > this requirement may be met. The most obvious is that all Core words may be > in a pre-compiled kernel. This is not the only way of satisfying the > requirement, however. For example, some words may be provided in source > blocks or files with instructions explaining how to add them to the system > if they are needed. So long as the words are provided in such a way that the > user can obtain access to them with a clear and straightforward procedure, > they may be considered to be present. > > A Forth cross-compiler has many characteristics in common with an ANS Forth > System, in that both use similar compiling tools to process a program. > However, in order to fully specify an ANS Forth cross compiler it would be > necessary to address complex issues dealing with compilation and execution > semantics in both host and target environments as well as ROMability > issues. The level of effort to do this properly has proved to be > impractical at this time. *As a result, although it may be possible for a > Forth cross-compiler to correctly prepare an ANS Forth program for > execution in a target environment, it is inappropriate for a > cross-compiler to be labeled an ANS Forth System.* Please not that we did develop and publish a proposed cross-compiler standard that addressed these issues. > - Vs. > > D.5 ANS Forth approach > > The committee feels that, if ANS Forth prescribes stringent requirements > upon the virtual machine model, as did the previous standards, then many > implementors will chose not to comply with ANS Forth. *The committee hopes > that ANS Forth will serve to unify rather than to further divide the Forth > community*, and thus has chosen to encompass rather than invalidate popular > implementation techniques. > > - And: > > A.3 Usage requirements > > Similarly, *we will not undertake in this section to tell you how to > implement a Forth System*, but rather will provide some guidance as to what > the minimum requirements are for systems that can properly claim > compliance with this Standard. > > - Good going! You just disqualified an entire line of Forth tools, as a > matter of fact, maybe the most profitable line of Forth tools that ever > existed and may even be the only real reason Forth still exists. Just > because you were dedicated on insisting on a VM standard instead of a true > language standard. > > See also: D.6 Differences from Forth 83 > > This is how interpret "breaking". > > Hans Bezemer > > BTW, yes, I still need some growing up to do. Wait, you think ANS Forth should have forbidden 32-bit or 64-bit implementations? Mandated ITC and other implementation details? Pre-Forth94 cross compilers didn't comply with Forth83, so were no more or less standard as a result of ANS Forth, and the TC did attempt to provide a solution for them. It is now perfectly possible to market a cross-compiler labeled "Complies with proposed cross-compiler standard." But existing Forth83 systems and applications could be rendered fully compatible with very little effort (mainly labeling and documentation requirements). 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 | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 18:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4eff4653$0$6840$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8484 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 12/29/11 10:51 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > Wait, you think ANS Forth should have forbidden 32-bit or 64-bit > implementations? Mandated ITC and other implementation details? No, quite the contrary. I think that every standardization effort comes with a bit of pain. I just think that an improvement *may* cost a bit of pain instead of dragging on with something that just isn't solid. Yes, it may cost some editing and testing, but that's all in the game. Yes, it may invalidate some perfectly good code, but sometimes there is a good reason for it. E.g. I know that having in a shared data/FP stack will complicate life, since 4tH has both. ZenFP is a wonderful elegant piece of code (at least IMHO) and I usually develop FP code there because it is so easy to handle. Still, although I thought it was a pity I understood the reasons for "unANSifying" it only too well and didn't object. IMHO people are hiding too much behind "current technology", "legacy code base" and "current implementations". Just get it right instead of fixing it all the time! > Pre-Forth94 cross compilers didn't comply with Forth83, so were no more > or less standard as a result of ANS Forth, and the TC did attempt to > provide a solution for them. It is now perfectly possible to market a > cross-compiler labeled "Complies with proposed cross-compiler standard." I'm aware too well of this "proposed" standard - it's been there for YEARS! Isn't it time to put it to a vote and include the darn thing? Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 10:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bcf72cf7-eb6b-437c-beab-94873d4f4056@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8517 |
On Dec 31, 12:29 pm, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > No, quite the contrary. I think that every standardization effort > comes with a bit of pain. I just think that an improvement *may* > cost a bit of pain instead of dragging on with something that just > isn't solid. Except the case in point is something that is every bit as solid as the proposed extension, but offends the esthetic sensibilities of the proposer of the extension. The amount of pain that should be born by implementers to provide a prettier alternate way to do what can already be done ... that's something that the implementers can decide. If its widely enough adopted as a prettier way to do it, then it can be proposed for standardization of a common existing practice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 10:20 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ccidnSy9CLPm82LTnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8517 |
On 12/31/11 7:29 AM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 12/29/11 10:51 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: >> Wait, you think ANS Forth should have forbidden 32-bit or 64-bit >> implementations? Mandated ITC and other implementation details? > No, quite the contrary. I think that every standardization effort comes with > a bit of pain. I just think that an improvement *may* cost a bit of pain > instead of dragging on with something that just isn't solid. Yes, it may > cost some editing and testing, but that's all in the game. Yes, it may > invalidate some perfectly good code, but sometimes there is a good reason > for it. > > E.g. I know that having in a shared data/FP stack will complicate life, > since 4tH has both. ZenFP is a wonderful elegant piece of code (at least > IMHO) and I usually develop FP code there because it is so easy to handle. > Still, although I thought it was a pity I understood the reasons > for "unANSifying" it only too well and didn't object. > > IMHO people are hiding too much behind "current technology", "legacy code > base" and "current implementations". Just get it right instead of fixing it > all the time! The difficulty is that opinions differ on exactly what "getting it right" constitutes! It was that attitude that caused Forth83 to break a lot of code and create serious divisions in the Forth community. >> Pre-Forth94 cross compilers didn't comply with Forth83, so were no more >> or less standard as a result of ANS Forth, and the TC did attempt to >> provide a solution for them. It is now perfectly possible to market a >> cross-compiler labeled "Complies with proposed cross-compiler standard." > I'm aware too well of this "proposed" standard - it's been there for YEARS! > Isn't it time to put it to a vote and include the darn thing? Truly, I would love to see that happen! 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 | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 00:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4eff9d65$0$6966$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8524 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > The difficulty is that opinions differ on exactly what "getting it > right" constitutes! It was that attitude that caused Forth83 to break a > lot of code and create serious divisions in the Forth community. True, there isn't ANYTHING I like about Forth-83. I turned away from Forth when I switched from ZX Spectrum to PC (around '85 -'86) and became a C programmer and didn't return until I was good enough to make my own compiler. It started out Forth-79 and despite the efforts of my mentor Wil Baden to align it with ANS-Forth it never became COMPLETELY compliant. There are still some places where Forth-79 rules, simply because I think intuitiveness and clarity is more important to me than the overly pragmatic "see how 1337 I am" cleverlessness of Forth-83. >> Isn't it time to put it to a vote and include the darn thing? > Truly, I would love to see that happen! What's keeping you? You got MY vote..! Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 15:43 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <59OdnQXYUN-tJ2LTnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8526 |
On 12/31/11 1:41 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: ... [ re cross-compiler proposed standard ] >>> Isn't it time to put it to a vote and include the darn thing? >> Truly, I would love to see that happen! > What's keeping you? You got MY vote..! > > Hans Bezemer I'm not on the committee. Talk to Anton et al. 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 | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 03:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4effc347$0$6916$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8535 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> What's keeping you? You got MY vote..! > I'm not on the committee. Talk to Anton et al. I thought anyone could invoke a CfV. That's what everyone has been telling me all the time. BTW, what's the location of the paper. I only have it local on my disk. Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-31 16:58 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ze-dnTN1uc4nVmLTnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #8538 |
On 12/31/11 4:22 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> What's keeping you? You got MY vote..! >> I'm not on the committee. Talk to Anton et al. > I thought anyone could invoke a CfV. That's what everyone has been telling > me all the time. They can. Go ahead! I vaguely recall hearing a year or so ago that Leon Wagner from FORTH, Inc. and Stephen Pelc were going to update it and present it, but don't know the recent status. > BTW, what's the location of the paper. I only have it local on my disk. http://www.forth.com/downloads/ANS/XCtext5.doc (normative text, http://www.forth.com/downloads/ANS/XCtext5.pdf two formats) http://www.forth.com/downloads/ANS/XCapp5.doc (explanatory appendices, http://www.forth.com/downloads/ANS/XCapp5.pdf two formats) http://www.forth.com/downloads/ANS/XCpaper.pdf (overview) XCpaper.pdf is an overview of the concepts, and a good place to start for folks unfamiliar with this work. 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 | Hans Bezemer <thebeez@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-01 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4f0066ab$0$6987$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #8539 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > They can. Go ahead! I vaguely recall hearing a year or so ago that Leon > Wagner from FORTH, Inc. and Stephen Pelc were going to update it and > present it, but don't know the recent status. Thanks! Compelling stuff. I merged it with my ANS document, since it fits in perfectly there. BTW, I invite Stephen and/or Leon to give an update on the current status and see what we can do here. Darn, I'll call for a CfV myself ;-) Hans Bezemer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 09:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.v7h3nybosu5d0p@david> |
| In reply to | #8539 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 12/31/11 4:22 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote: >> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>>> What's keeping you? You got MY vote..! >>> I'm not on the committee. Talk to Anton et al. > >> I thought anyone could invoke a CfV. That's what everyone has been >> telling me all the time. That is true, just post an RfD here and on the email list, then you can call a CfV in the same way. > They can. Go ahead! I vaguely recall hearing a year or so ago that Leon > Wagner from FORTH, Inc. and Stephen Pelc were going to update it and > present it, but don't know the recent status. Last time we looked at this, both Leon and Stephen agreed that they would like to revise the proposal before putting it forward. A revised proposal has yet to appear and will not be included in the snapshot release. -- Peter Knaggs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-01-03 10:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012Jan3.112815@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #8618 |
"Peter Knaggs" <pjk@bcs.org.uk> writes:
>Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/11 4:22 PM, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>>> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>>>>> What's keeping you? You got MY vote..!
>>>> I'm not on the committee. Talk to Anton et al.
>>
>>> I thought anyone could invoke a CfV. That's what everyone has been
>>> telling me all the time.
>
>That is true, just post an RfD here and on the email list, then you
>can call a CfV in the same way.
Yes, if you think a feature is worth the work, go ahead and write and
RfD for it. For the CfV, better send it to a votetaker (you could
also do it yourself and then pass it to, e.g., me after the first wave
of votes is in and there is a "Current Standings" out).
- 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 | 2011-12-30 12:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <800701c9-fb70-4665-a60a-26290e11f4ee@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8459 |
On Dec 30, 3:51 am, Hans Bezemer <theb...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > However, in order to fully specify an ANS Forth cross compiler it > would be necessary to address complex issues dealing with > compilation and execution semantics in both host and target > environments as well as ROMability issues. The level of effort to > do this properly has proved to be impractical at this time. *As a > result, although it may be possible for a Forth cross-compiler to > correctly prepare an ANS Forth program for execution in a target > environment, it is inappropriate for a cross-compiler to be labeled > an ANS Forth System.* ... > - Good going! You just disqualified an entire line of Forth tools, > as a matter of fact, maybe the most profitable line of Forth tools > that ever existed and may even be the only real reason Forth still > exists. The OP was you asking whether using DOES> in the interpreter is portable under Forth94, and getting the reply that the behavior you pointed to was compile-time behavior so an implementation is free to make DOES> do whatever it wants it to do in the interpreter. Now you are arguing that the TC *should* have had the foresight to force DOES> to be state dependent in any compiler that wanted to claim compliance ... because they refrained from specifying a cross-compiler standard that had not yet been hammered out and agreed to? In changing the subject from systems "broken" by the standard to systems beyond the 1994 scope of the standard (and of course beyond the scope of the Forth79 and Forth83 quasi-standards as well), you've shown that ANS Forth *didn't* break the "most profitable line of Forth tools that every existed". It certainly did not "render" all of those systems non-standard, since by hosts that you are talking about were neither Forth79 nor Forth93 systems. It seems like the focus on the TC is because there is no prospect of actually getting consensus support on behalf of *adding* rarely needed and in any event redundant requirement to the Forth201x standard. Without the prospect for getting consensus going ahead, the only thing left to do aside from dropping it is to complains about it not already being a _fait accompli_.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 17:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ef35d3a$0$6641$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #8304 |
On 22.12.2011 08:29, Hans Bezemer wrote: > Just being conservative > doesn't help the development and application of this language. To me Forth is kind of a Swiss army knife for bare metal programmers. But adding a chain-saw to an army knife makes neither a good knife nor a good chain saw. ;-) Nevertheless I'd vote for killing 2 Forth variables: STATE and BASE. That would end many fruitless discussions here. Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dae790c3-494c-4beb-8ab1-b32bf37bb813@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8307 |
On Dec 22, 4:39 pm, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote: > On 22.12.2011 08:29, Hans Bezemer wrote: > > > Just being conservative > > doesn't help the development and application of this language. > > To me Forth is kind of a Swiss army knife for bare metal programmers. > > But adding a chain-saw to an army knife makes neither a good knife nor a > good chain saw. ;-) > > Nevertheless I'd vote for killing 2 Forth variables: STATE and BASE. > That would end many fruitless discussions here. > > Andreas Killing STATE has been done by me in my Forth as it uses smart compile techniques discussed here a number of years ago. It is read only and provided only for compatability. Killing BASE may be a little more difficult. What would you propose? I would rather kill TO, but that may not be possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 09:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f2812179-547e-43af-adae-15a0e3fe3232@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8309 |
On Dec 22, 12:13 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > Killing STATE has been done by me in my Forth as it uses smart compile > techniques discussed here a number of years ago. It is read only and > provided only for compatability. If that is tantamount to killing STATE then Forth94 would seem to have already killed it at the language standard level, since you cannot portably write to it and if you could there is no way of knowing *what* to write to it, since anything other than 0 counts as compile state. The perhaps more precisely the standard is an accomplice of any such "STATE killing" that any implementation wishes to achieve. > Killing BASE may be a little more difficult. What would you propose? Here, I think that killing BASE would be by no means the end to "fruitless discussion", because then the topic of discussion would be the desire to get BASE back after it had been removed on the basis of such a weak rationale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 10:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d04ff9c8-3cef-43a5-bd13-c5ecaae6fe0c@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8310 |
On Dec 22, 5:26 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Dec 22, 12:13 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > Killing STATE has been done by me in my Forth as it uses smart compile > > techniques discussed here a number of years ago. It is read only and > > provided only for compatability. > > If that is tantamount to killing STATE then Forth94 would seem to have > already killed it at the language standard level, since you cannot > portably write to it and if you could there is no way of knowing > *what* to write to it, since anything other than 0 counts as compile > state. Perhaps this stronger statement might make the point; my Forth does not require the use of STATE at all. Words that have non-standard compilation semantics can be written without it, although not portably. > > The perhaps more precisely the standard is an accomplice of any such > "STATE killing" that any implementation wishes to achieve. > > > Killing BASE may be a little more difficult. What would you propose? > > Here, I think that killing BASE would be by no means the end to > "fruitless discussion", because then the topic of discussion would be > the desire to get BASE back after it had been removed on the basis of > such a weak rationale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 10:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a64c5178-9f52-4e99-a7db-9978fe2a42dd@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8312 |
On Dec 22, 1:39 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > Perhaps this stronger statement might make the point; my Forth does > not require the use of STATE at all. Words that have non-standard > compilation semantics can be written without it, although not > portably. Yes, and Forth94 in taking the writing to STATE out of the standard behavior is an accomplice to that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95127365-57f0-4092-844a-74a7b1eefa8c@i8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8313 |
On Dec 22, 6:58 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:39 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > > > Perhaps this stronger statement might make the point; my Forth does > > not require the use of STATE at all. Words that have non-standard > > compilation semantics can be written without it, although not > > portably. > > Yes, and Forth94 in taking the writing to STATE out of the standard > behavior is an accomplice to that. Perhaps there needs to be some standard for it. I use : foobar foo bar compilation> drop postpone foo postpone bar ; And there's no [COMPILE] either, since immediacy is hard to determine in my Forth. Gforth uses other mechanisms; see http://www.public.iastate.edu/~forth/gforth_42.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-22 12:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <791a52b6-262e-491c-831e-a378183cf93b@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8314 |
On Dec 22, 3:00 pm, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote: > Perhaps there needs to be some standard for it. I use ... > Gforth uses other mechanisms; Yeah, more than one implementation supporting the same behavior ~ even as a crossover from the native mechanism ~ would be the start to establishing a standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web