Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17115 > unrolled thread

Genral advise and comments on callback style words

Started byChris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com>
First post2012-11-07 13:42 +0000
Last post2012-11-08 20:50 +0000
Articles 5 on this page of 45 — 8 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 13:42 +0000
    Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 13:51 +0000
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 13:56 +0000
    Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-07 13:55 +0000
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 15:29 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 15:35 +0000
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 15:32 +0000
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 15:37 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-08 16:31 +0000
          Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 17:02 +0000
            Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-08 17:07 +0000
            Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-09 01:16 -0800
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 15:41 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-08 16:39 +0000
    Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 08:07 -0800
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 12:52 +0000
    Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-11-07 13:04 -0800
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 13:04 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 06:34 -0800
          Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 14:40 +0000
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 13:14 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 13:23 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Ouatu Bogdan <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 13:45 +0000
          Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 13:59 +0000
          Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 14:02 +0000
            Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 15:35 +0000
              Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 16:24 +0000
                Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 16:39 +0000
                  Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 16:57 +0000
                    Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-08 07:56 -1000
    Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-08 13:54 +0000
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 14:06 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-08 18:04 +0000
          Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 19:36 +0000
          Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 19:38 +0000
            Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 19:42 +0000
      Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 14:11 +0000
        Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 14:31 +0000
          Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 14:51 +0000
            Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-08 18:23 +0000
              Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 19:57 +0000
              Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 20:04 +0000
                Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 20:17 +0000
                  Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 20:29 +0000
                    Re: Genral advise and comments on callback style words Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-08 20:50 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#17179

FromChris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com>
Date2012-11-08 19:57 +0000
Message-ID<2012110819575749197-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
In reply to#17175
On 2012-11-08 18:23:21 +0000, Josh Grams said:

> Chris Hinsley wrote: <2012110814515560672-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
>> On 2012-11-08 14:31:20 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:
>>>> Josh Grams wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
>>>>> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R
>>>>> 	LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD BEGIN
>>>>> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC
>>>>> 	DUP WHILE
>>>>> 		2R@ EXECUTE
>>>>> 	?DUP UNTIL ELSE NIP THEN
>>>>> 	NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
>>> 
>>> Err, I'm not sure that works! You are skipping the first node.
> 
> Yeah, sorry; I thought that's what your code was doing; see my response
> to your first reply to mine.
> 
>>> Isn't the 2DUP also blowing up the stack with an extra copy of the
>>> original LH each time ?
>> 
>> And it's not passing the user value into the callback at all ?
> 
> In this case, EXECUTE is ( u ln lh xt -- ln | 0 ), right?  So the 2DUP
> provides two of those four items, and the 2R@ provides the other two.
> 
> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R  LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD
> 	BEGIN DUP WHILE  ( u ln )  ( R: lh xt )
> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC 2SWAP
> 		2R@ EXECUTE
> 	?DUP UNTIL THEN ( u ln ln|0 ) NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
> 
> --Josh

I'll go over this one on paper :) You might have a winner ! ;)

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17180

FromChris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com>
Date2012-11-08 20:04 +0000
Message-ID<2012110820040689990-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
In reply to#17175
On 2012-11-08 18:23:21 +0000, Josh Grams said:

> Chris Hinsley wrote: <2012110814515560672-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
>> On 2012-11-08 14:31:20 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:
>>>> Josh Grams wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
>>>>> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R
>>>>> 	LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD BEGIN
>>>>> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC
>>>>> 	DUP WHILE
>>>>> 		2R@ EXECUTE
>>>>> 	?DUP UNTIL ELSE NIP THEN
>>>>> 	NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
>>> 
>>> Err, I'm not sure that works! You are skipping the first node.
> 
> Yeah, sorry; I thought that's what your code was doing; see my response
> to your first reply to mine.
> 
>>> Isn't the 2DUP also blowing up the stack with an extra copy of the
>>> original LH each time ?
>> 
>> And it's not passing the user value into the callback at all ?
> 
> In this case, EXECUTE is ( u ln lh xt -- ln | 0 ), right?  So the 2DUP
> provides two of those four items, and the 2R@ provides the other two.
> 
> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R  LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD
> 	BEGIN DUP WHILE  ( u ln )  ( R: lh xt )
> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC 2SWAP
> 		2R@ EXECUTE
> 	?DUP UNTIL THEN ( u ln ln|0 ) NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
> 
> --Josh

Does the inner loop there beat the inner loop here ? I like that you've 
got rid of the PICK.

\ ( u xt lh -- r | 0 )
\ xt api is ( u ln lh -- r | 0 )
: LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS
	SWAP OVER 2>R LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD
	BEGIN
		DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC DUP
 	WHILE
 		2 PICK ROT 2R@ EXECUTE ?DUP
 	UNTIL THEN
 	2RDROP NIP NIP
;

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17181

FromChris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com>
Date2012-11-08 20:17 +0000
Message-ID<2012110820173759604-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
In reply to#17180
On 2012-11-08 20:04:06 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:

> On 2012-11-08 18:23:21 +0000, Josh Grams said:
> 
>> Chris Hinsley wrote: <2012110814515560672-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
>>> On 2012-11-08 14:31:20 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:
>>>>> Josh Grams wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
>>>>>> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R
>>>>>> 	LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD BEGIN
>>>>>> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC
>>>>>> 	DUP WHILE
>>>>>> 		2R@ EXECUTE
>>>>>> 	?DUP UNTIL ELSE NIP THEN
>>>>>> 	NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
>>>> 
>>>> Err, I'm not sure that works! You are skipping the first node.
>> 
>> Yeah, sorry; I thought that's what your code was doing; see my response
>> to your first reply to mine.
>> 
>>>> Isn't the 2DUP also blowing up the stack with an extra copy of the
>>>> original LH each time ?
>>> 
>>> And it's not passing the user value into the callback at all ?
>> 
>> In this case, EXECUTE is ( u ln lh xt -- ln | 0 ), right?  So the 2DUP
>> provides two of those four items, and the 2R@ provides the other two.
>> 
>> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
>> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R  LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD
>> 	BEGIN DUP WHILE  ( u ln )  ( R: lh xt )
>> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC 2SWAP
>> 		2R@ EXECUTE
>> 	?DUP UNTIL THEN ( u ln ln|0 ) NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
>> 
>> --Josh

Ah, no that crashes ! Reason is that you end up processing the end of 
list marker, ie the bottom two thirds of the listheader as if it was an 
actual node ! Nice try ! ;)

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17182

FromChris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com>
Date2012-11-08 20:29 +0000
Message-ID<2012110820295238952-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
In reply to#17181
On 2012-11-08 20:17:37 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:

> On 2012-11-08 20:04:06 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:
> 
>> On 2012-11-08 18:23:21 +0000, Josh Grams said:
>> 
>>> Chris Hinsley wrote: <2012110814515560672-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
>>>> On 2012-11-08 14:31:20 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:
>>>>>> Josh Grams wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
>>>>>>> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R
>>>>>>> 	LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD BEGIN
>>>>>>> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC
>>>>>>> 	DUP WHILE
>>>>>>> 		2R@ EXECUTE
>>>>>>> 	?DUP UNTIL ELSE NIP THEN
>>>>>>> 	NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
>>>>> 
>>>>> Err, I'm not sure that works! You are skipping the first node.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, sorry; I thought that's what your code was doing; see my response
>>> to your first reply to mine.
>>> 
>>>>> Isn't the 2DUP also blowing up the stack with an extra copy of the
>>>>> original LH each time ?
>>>> 
>>>> And it's not passing the user value into the callback at all ?
>>> 
>>> In this case, EXECUTE is ( u ln lh xt -- ln | 0 ), right?  So the 2DUP
>>> provides two of those four items, and the 2R@ provides the other two.
>>> 
>>> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS ( u xt lh -- ln | 0 )
>>> 	TUCK  SWAP 2>R  LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD
>>> 	BEGIN DUP WHILE  ( u ln )  ( R: lh xt )
>>> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC 2SWAP
>>> 		2R@ EXECUTE
>>> 	?DUP UNTIL THEN ( u ln ln|0 ) NIP NIP 2R> 2DROP ;
>>> 
>>> --Josh
> 
> Ah, no that crashes ! Reason is that you end up processing the end of 
> list marker, ie the bottom two thirds of the listheader as if it was an 
> actual node ! Nice try ! ;)
> 
> Chris

This however does work, but leaves me debateing that single PICK and 
ROT verses the 2SWAP 2DUP and the extra NIP needed at the ELSE !

\ ( u xt lh -- r | 0 )
\ xt api is ( u ln lh -- r | 0 )
: LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS
	SWAP OVER 2>R LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD
	BEGIN
		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC DUP
 	WHILE
 		2SWAP 2R@ EXECUTE ?DUP
 	UNTIL ELSE NIP THEN
 	2RDROP NIP NIP
;

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17183

FromChris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com>
Date2012-11-08 20:50 +0000
Message-ID<2012110820500166622-chrishinsley@gmailcom>
In reply to#17182
On 2012-11-08 20:29:52 +0000, Chris Hinsley said:
> This however does work, but leaves me debateing that single PICK and 
> ROT verses the 2SWAP 2DUP and the extra NIP needed at the ELSE !
> 
> \ ( u xt lh -- r | 0 )
> \ xt api is ( u ln lh -- r | 0 )
> : LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS
> 	SWAP OVER 2>R LISTHEAD-GET-HEAD
> 	BEGIN
> 		2DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC DUP
>  	WHILE
>  		2SWAP 2R@ EXECUTE ?DUP
>  	UNTIL ELSE NIP THEN
>  	2RDROP NIP NIP
> ;

vs.

: LISTHEAD-ENUMERATE-FORWARDS
	SWAP OVER 2>R LISTHEAD-GET-TAIL
	BEGIN
		DUP LISTNODE-GET-SUCC DUP
 	WHILE
 		2 PICK ROT 2R@ EXECUTE ?DUP
 	UNTIL THEN
 	2RDROP NIP NIP
;

The extra NIP or jump on exit is negligable on any list worth a damb, 
so its the DUP, 2 PICK, ROT vs the 2DUP, 2SWAP ? Care to convince me to 
go with your 2 cell stuff :) I'm half way persuaded allready.

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web