Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.misc > #11409
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.misc |
| Subject | Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release |
| Date | 2025-10-10 16:21 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10cb8ae$4hse$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (11 earlier) <10bsnt7$2vh99$2@dont-email.me> <10btkhq$3ao5s$1@dont-email.me> <10c6h3e$18jia$1@paganini.bofh.team> <10c6lom$1sopd$1@dont-email.me> <10ca1ff$1p1d3$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
On 10/10/2025 05:18, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 08/10/2025 21:21, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>>> To support higher order functions, a language has to be able to handle
>>>> functions as first-class objects - it has to be able to take them as
>>>> function parameters, and return them as functions. It is not sufficient
>>>> to take and return function pointers, like C - it has to be something
>>>> that is treated in the language as a function.
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree with this statement about pointers. Using pointers
>>> to represent functions is usual in C and pretty consistent with making
>>> explicit things that other languages do behind the scenes. Rather,
>>> main limitation in C is that one can only use existing functions, there
>>> is no way to make a new one. Classic Pascal can make new functions,
>>> but one can not legaly return freshly created function, so in this
>>> aspect is only marginally better than C. Lambdas in C and C++ are
>>> problematic as they are not usual way to represent functions in C or
>>> C++.
>>>
>>> OTOH a tiny extention to C could give reasonable support. Namely,
>>> while other languages may implicitly allocate heap memory, C requires
>>> explicit calls to 'malloc' (and 'free'). Similarly, natural way
>>> to create new function in C would be appropriate allocation function,
>>> say called 'falloc' (an matching 'ffree'). 'falloc' should take
>>> pointer to a function 'f', a value 'v' and probably number of arguments
>>> 'n' and return poiter 'g' so that call
>>>
>>> (*g)(a_1,\dots, a_n)
>>>
>>>
>>> is equvalent to
>>>
>>> (*f)(v, a_1,\dots, a_n)
>>>
>>> taking a 'v' a pointer this allows passing arbitrary amount of extra
>>> data to 'f'.
>>>
>>> With such extention C would allow reasonably natural expression of
>>> things done in other languages claiming to support higher order functions.
>>> People using other languages may disregard this as too primitive,
>>> but IMO it would very natural in C.
>>
>> Last week I posted a link to a 'man or boy' test; this a version in C:
>>
>> https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Man_or_boy_test#C
>>
>> This test requires local functions with full closures to implement
>> natively. The first C version emulates what is needed.
>>
>> I tweaked that version so that is used N=13 instead of N=10, and
>> evaluates the function 10,000 times. The second version uses C
>> extensions to provide the higher level functionality.
>>
>> These are timings I got for the two versions:
>>
>> First C version (gcc -O2: 0.8 seconds
>> (Tiny C): 1.8 seconds
>> Second C version (gcc -O2): 590 seconds (extrapolated from 1K loops)
>> (gcc -O0): 940 seconds
>>
>> So avoiding those complex functional features makes even TCC's poor code
>> 300 times that optimised C. And nearly 800:1 better comparing -O2 with -O2.
>
> It is not clear to me what you measure. I used:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #define INT(body) ({ int lambda(){ body; }; lambda; })
> int
> main(){
> int a(int k, int xl(), int x2(), int x3(), int x4(), int x5()){
> int b(){
> return a(--k, b, xl, x2, x3, x4);
> }
> return k<=0 ? x4() + x5() : b();
> }
> int res = 0;
> int i;
> for(i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
> res += a(13, INT(return 1), INT(return -1), INT(return -1), INT(return
> 1), INT(return 0));
> }
> printf("res = %d\n", res);
> }
>
> Compiling this using:
>
> gcc -O -Wall man1.c -o man1
>
> I get 0.895s. Using -O2 I get 0.693s. Version without loop, but using
> 13 as an argument (as above) takes 0.002s. This is on a fast machine,
> on really slow mini-PC I get 10.117s at -O2. I suspect that your time is
> due to operationg system, the results above are for Linux on x86_64.
> On Linux on 1GHz Risc-V at -O2 I get:
>
> real 0m28.910s
> user 0m14.512s
> sys 0m14.381s
>
> which means that about half of execution time is in system calls.
> Looking at assembly shows that the machine code is calling
> '__riscv_flush_icache', that is it flushing cache to make sure
> that processor will execute freshly generated instructions
> (not needed on PC-s). System calls are expensive, and flushing
> cache also adds slowdown, so this adds substantial cost. Still,
> the Risc-V machine is quite slow, and can do this much faster
> than your estimate of execution time.
>
> For me on fast machine first (emulated) version takes 0.331s when
> compiled by gcc at -O2 and 0.767s when compiled by tcc. On Risc-V
> emulated version (compiled by gcc -O2) needs 3.553s.
>
> So emulated version is clearly faster, especially if version
> using nested functions need support from operating system.
>
> But the point of using nested functions/closures is that code
> is simpler.
Well, the code is smaller; that doesn't mean it is simpler! It can be
harder to know what's going on with a cryptic bit of code like this.
(I believe it was Knuth who failed to correctly predict the result of
N=10 (?), at some point in history when computing it was not practical.)
> The test is doing nonsense operation, so one
> can miss simplicty, but clearly emulated version is longer.
> More important, in bigger program all involved calls must be
> dane in nonstandard way, which adds work (potentially quite a lot).
> In version with nested functions only efort is in definition
> of nested functions, calls are standard calls and rest of program
> can be written as if there were no use of nested functions.
>
> As you can see, when properly supported extra cost of nested
> functions is moderate.
>
> BTW: Some language implementation use approach which is
> equivalent to emulated version. For heavy use of nested
> functions this may lead to faster code (like in this example).
> But when "emulation" is part of language implementation
> all calls would need to do extra work, slowing down normall
> calls. In language like C this is deemed unacceptable,
> nested function are rarely use so they must pay extra,
> while normal call work at maximal speed.
>
I'm testing the version show below (I added the += to make it match
yours). Results on Windows are:
c:\c>gc d opt
Invoking: gcc -s -O2 d.c -o d.exe -lm -ldl -fno-strict-aliasing
Compiled d.c to d.exe
c:\c>tm d
-64200
TM: 6.01
So 6 seconds to do 100 iterations. If I try it in WSL, using 10000
iterations, then I get:
c:\c>wsl
root@DESKTOP-11:/mnt/c/c# gcc -O2 d.c -od
root@DESKTOP-11:/mnt/c/c# time ./d
-6420000
real 0m1.184s
user 0m1.180s
sys 0m0.001s
So under WSL it's 500 times faster. I've no idea why.
However, I work under Windows! So do lots of people. And there, the fact
that these exotic features might make programs significantly slower has
to be taken into consideration.
I tried a Python version too. There, 200 iterations took 5.4 seconds on
both OSes. PyPy on Windows was twice as fast.
My dynamic language, which has to emulate it, runs that x200 test in 0.3
seconds, and the full 10K in 16 seconds (Python would take over 4
minutes). That version is shown below the C code.
--------------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
#define INT(body) ({ int lambda(){ body; }; lambda; })
int main(){
int a(int k, int xl(), int x2(), int x3(), int x4(), int x5()){
int b(){
return a(--k, b, xl, x2, x3, x4);
}
return k<=0 ? x4() + x5() : b();
}
int x=0;
for(int i=0; i<10000; ++i) {
x+=a(13, INT(return 1), INT(return -1), INT(return -1),
INT(return 1), INT(return 0));
}
printf(" %d\n",x);
}
-----------------------------------------------------
record bd = var f, k, x1,x2,x3,x4,x5 end
func B(d) =
--d.k
A(d.k, d, d.x1, d.x2, d.x3, d.x4)
end
func A(k, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) =
if k<=0 then
callbd(x4)+callbd(x5)
else
B(bd(B,k,x1,x2,x3,x4,x5))
fi
end
func callbd(x) =
f:=x.f
f(x)
end
proc main =
x:=0
to 200 do
x+:=A(13, bd(f:{x:1}), bd(f:{x:-1}), bd(f:{x:-1}), bd(f:{x:1}),
bd(f:{x:0}))
od
println x
end
Back to comp.lang.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-23 06:49 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-23 15:22 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-23 17:49 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-24 00:58 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-25 01:49 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-26 23:53 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-23 19:28 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-24 00:27 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-24 02:49 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-25 01:57 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-25 02:14 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-27 00:58 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-27 08:23 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-27 23:23 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-28 07:35 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-29 00:43 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-30 05:40 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-30 20:38 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-31 10:10 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-01 17:20 +0100
Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-02 00:56 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-02 01:15 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-02 17:02 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-02 22:17 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-04 17:01 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-05 04:32 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:04 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-03 01:46 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release (was Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-04 00:30 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-10 17:15 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-10 23:57 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-11 07:27 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-11 09:42 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-11 17:16 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-09-27 00:41 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-27 14:38 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-09-29 01:15 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-29 16:05 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-29 18:57 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-30 15:58 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-09-30 17:48 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-09-29 19:08 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-30 23:23 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-01 23:00 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-10-02 16:55 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-04 12:38 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-04 14:04 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-10-04 13:47 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-04 15:03 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-04 15:07 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-10-04 18:40 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-04 19:46 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-10-07 16:37 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-07 17:16 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-10-07 23:58 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 01:20 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-10-08 16:10 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-08 17:41 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-09 00:53 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-09 01:02 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 01:09 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-07 22:27 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2025-10-08 00:20 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-04 22:00 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-05 00:31 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-05 01:52 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-05 03:15 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-05 11:05 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-05 20:20 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-10-06 09:44 +0200
Higher order functions (was Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-06 10:01 +0200
Re: Higher order functions (was Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-10-06 10:56 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-06 11:03 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-06 22:01 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-06 23:46 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-06 23:05 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-07 10:32 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-08 04:57 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-10-05 13:24 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-08 20:21 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-08 21:30 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-08 22:40 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-10 04:18 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-10 16:21 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-11 00:05 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-11 11:25 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-11 13:08 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-11 15:25 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-11 12:39 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-09 00:34 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-09 03:15 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2025-10-09 08:59 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-09 14:31 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2025-10-09 14:53 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2025-10-09 10:35 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-09 21:37 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-10-10 17:40 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-10 20:04 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-10 21:45 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-11 00:29 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-11 00:16 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-11 01:59 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-11 01:42 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-11 10:42 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-31 06:51 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-10-13 20:58 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-13 23:13 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-10-14 00:39 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-12 03:56 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-10-13 22:38 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-24 04:33 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-03 22:24 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-04 03:39 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-04 12:19 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-04 14:16 +0200
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-04 21:05 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-05 01:40 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-05 03:13 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-05 01:29 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-10-07 15:25 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-10-07 17:03 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-07 22:09 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Adam Sampson <ats@offog.org> - 2025-10-08 18:22 +0100
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-08 21:48 +0000
Re: Algol 68 / Genie - new release antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-10-08 23:45 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-30 06:54 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-31 00:44 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-31 08:12 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-31 10:42 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-01 00:10 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-01 07:30 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-01 16:13 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-01 22:41 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:08 +0000
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-04 00:54 +0100
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-31 10:29 +0200
Re: Algol 68 - formatting with fixed point format Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-24 02:47 +0000
csiph-web