Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #20052 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-02-26 17:03 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-02-27 13:10 -1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 115 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-02-26 17:03 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 04:06 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2013-02-27 05:30 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-27 06:34 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-27 14:42 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-27 11:54 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-02-27 15:27 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-02-27 21:58 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-27 16:33 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-02 17:23 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-02 15:12 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-03 14:30 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-03 14:49 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-07 16:35 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 17:29 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-08 12:17 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-28 00:17 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-02-28 01:04 -0800
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-28 17:10 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-28 11:20 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-02 16:54 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-02 15:38 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-03 14:43 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-03 15:05 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-03 23:14 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-04 03:41 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 11:00 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-04 12:47 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 16:27 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-04 19:27 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 20:46 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-05 00:19 -0800
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-05 12:17 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 17:22 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-05 17:52 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 17:03 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-05 12:38 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-05 17:57 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-05 13:29 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> - 2013-03-05 22:19 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-05 17:58 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 19:26 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-05 11:19 -0800
Forth convergence with rest of world Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> - 2013-03-05 22:17 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-05 15:15 -0800
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-06 17:35 +0100
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-06 16:44 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-06 17:39 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-05 18:16 -0600
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-06 13:49 -0500
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-06 19:11 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-06 14:24 -0500
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-06 19:40 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-06 09:26 -1000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-06 09:26 -1000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-06 15:34 -0600
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> - 2013-03-06 22:04 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-06 12:09 -1000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-07 04:24 -0600
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-07 04:15 -0800
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-07 08:42 -0600
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-07 13:50 -0800
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-07 12:12 -0500
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-07 18:36 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-07 14:07 -0500
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-07 19:43 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 17:27 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-07 08:47 -1000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2013-03-07 21:42 +0100
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-07 14:43 -0800
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-07 13:53 -1000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-07 12:38 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-07 08:43 -0600
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2013-03-08 18:04 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-08 12:18 -0600
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2013-03-08 18:36 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-08 14:30 -1000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2013-03-09 01:27 +0000
Re: Forth convergence with rest of world Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-09 02:43 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 01:19 -0800
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-05 12:01 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 17:02 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-04 12:45 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-04 11:58 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-04 19:34 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-04 15:15 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2013-03-04 23:31 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 17:07 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-03-05 12:11 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-05 00:32 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-07 17:00 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-07 16:52 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-08 17:32 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-08 12:25 -0600
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-11 09:57 -0700
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-11 12:05 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-11 17:20 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-03-11 14:05 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-11 14:35 -0700
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-12 00:21 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-12 12:13 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-11 19:16 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-11 19:29 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-11 21:36 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-11 20:52 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-03-11 14:39 -0700
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-11 21:52 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-03-12 01:11 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-03-12 00:41 +0000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-03-12 17:33 +0100
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-02-27 11:51 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-27 09:25 -1000
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2013-02-27 17:23 -0500
Re: MiniForth 0.1.18 has just been released ... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-27 13:10 -1000
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 22:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20130305221826.21890.93552@Nokia-N810-43-7> |
| In reply to | #20305 |
Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> writes: > > What generality? What history? AFAIK in Unix and C a leading 0 > > indicates octal, but I have not come across that (IMO bad) idea > > elsewhere. > In my estimation, C is common practice, whereas the 6502 is a footnote in > history ... Python follows this practice, FWIW. Both 0x10 and 010 give the sames values that C would. Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51363240$0$6056$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #20297 |
In article <kh58e5$ene$1@dont-email.me>, Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: <SNIP> > >Well it's a moot point given that the Forth 200X prefix for hex numbers >will be $. The ciforth approach to prefixes as given in Albert's reply >is totally non-standard anyway. The Forth standard accepts leading 0's >as part of an integer input. So according to you the standard implies that if you accept $1789 as a hex number, you must also except 0$1789 as a hex number. I don't believe many Forth's live up to that. > >-- >Gerry -- 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 | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 19:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kh5gpk$16r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #20304 |
On 05/03/2013 17:58, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <kh58e5$ene$1@dont-email.me>, > Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > <SNIP> >> >> Well it's a moot point given that the Forth 200X prefix for hex numbers >> will be $. The ciforth approach to prefixes as given in Albert's reply >> is totally non-standard anyway. The Forth standard accepts leading 0's >> as part of an integer input. > > So according to you the standard implies that > if you accept $1789 as a hex number, you must also except > 0$1789 as a hex number. Not at all, the $ comes first. According to Forth 200X document forth-rc1.pdf <hexnum> := $[-]<hexdigit><hexdigit>* so what I refer to as leading 0's go after the $ or the optional - character. > I don't believe many Forth's live up to that. > Quite right too -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 11:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b795a26a-6c78-4e2e-9ae9-a99908b4782a@g8g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20297 |
On Mar 5, 5:03 pm, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 05/03/2013 08:19, Alex McDonald wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 8:46 pm, Gerry Jackson <ge...@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> On 04/03/2013 19:27, Albert van der Horst wrote: > [...] > >>> Prefixes are the recognizers Anton talks about. Only with me they are > >>> just Forth words, that are found in the dictionary. > >>> Look up > >>> 0x78AB > >>> in the dictionary and find a match at 0x , because it has the prefix bit > >>> set. Now 0x is IMMEDIATE and at execution find >IN pointing just past > >>> 0x, ready to parse the number. > >>> The whole mechanism adds two lines in INTERPRET. > > >> How does ciforth handle the case where BASE is set to 36 and the > >> programmer wants to input a base 36 number 0x78AB or 0x78ab or 0X78AB? > > > The mechanism I use is a cascade of conversions. 0x78ab would be > > converted base 36, and not recognised as the hex number 0x78ab, as the > > base 36 successful conversion comes first. > > >> Can a ciforth user define a new prefix e.g. i# for a complex number, > >> without delving into the guts of ciforth? > > > Again, for my Forth, it's simply a case of adding a words with the > > signature ( addr len -- double ) to a list of "recognisers". If it > > can't convert, it THROWs and the next "recogniser" is tried. > > Yes that is the method I will add to my system except that I don't see > that a THROW is necesssary - possibly because I haven't done it yet. It simplifies stack handling and having to pass back some kind of flag. THROW signals an error and leaves the stack at a known depth. > In my first post I was trying to make the point that if the user can > control the order in which recognisers are tried the order given in the > standard text interpreter can be usefully overridden. Yes, that can be achieved. However, having a regular order makes the rules simpler; I tend to try number conversion from most promiscuous to least promiscuous in terms of the parse. For example, 10.20 is a double, not a two section IPv4 address. > > > This is quite different from ciforth's mechanism of prefixes in a > > dictionary. I suspect 0x78ab only has one interpretation; that of a > > base 16 number, and that 0xdefg would be an error. > > Well it's a moot point given that the Forth 200X prefix for hex numbers > will be $. The ciforth approach to prefixes as given in Albert's reply > is totally non-standard anyway. The Forth standard accepts leading 0's > as part of an integer input. And $f.e is a hex double, as is $.fe and $fe. > > -- > Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 22:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <20130305220509.21890.52051@Nokia-N810-43-7> |
| In reply to | #20297 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: > So according to you the standard implies that > if you accept $1789 as a hex number, you must also except > 0$1789 as a hex number. > I don't believe many Forth's live up to that. I'm still puzzled why the Forth world doesn't just converge with common usage on areas which are orthogonal to the true distinctiveness of Forth. 0x1234 for hex, 0123 for octal, 5.5 for float/double, 5L for long int. And then, // for comment to end of line. "const" for constant, and so forth. Probably then->endif, and stop SHOUTING AT THE COMPUTER, Lower case has won for control structures. Convergence with common usage would reduce the number of superficial differences which so put off people who have a look at Forth. It would focus differences (and thus learning curve) on the aspects of Forth which are *meaningfully* unique. True, it's not the Forth we grew up with. So what? Neither is C (K&R->ANSI) nor Unix (->Linux) nor most other technologies which have enjoyed dominance in the tech world. Forth really could do with a strong jolt of evolution. Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 15:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <fb0d5535-d26d-4d34-baa2-1d009e3c4689@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #20320 |
On Mar 5, 10:17 pm, Andy Valencia <u...@vsta.org> wrote: > alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: > > > So according to you the standard implies that > > if you accept $1789 as a hex number, you must also except > > 0$1789 as a hex number. > > I don't believe many Forth's live up to that. > > I'm still puzzled why the Forth world doesn't just converge with common > usage on areas which are orthogonal to the true distinctiveness of Forth. > 0x1234 for hex, 0123 for octal, 5.5 for float/double, 5L for long int. > And then, // for comment to end of line. "const" for constant, and > so forth. Probably then->endif, and stop SHOUTING AT THE COMPUTER, > Lower case has won for control structures. variable -> var 2variable -> longvar value -> int 2value -> longint 5.5 is float on a par with 5.5e0, and replace double with 5.5d Permit # $ % & (decimal, hex, binary, octal) as prefixes on any number format, including float Drop WORD BASE [COMPILE] and STATE Replace all 2xxx (2swap 2@ 2! etc) with Dxxx (dswap d@ d!) Drop S" and S\" in favour of " quoted strings Recognise UTF-8 encodings as a first class citizen and redefine COUNT and C@ accordingly None of these is likely to fly, however much I might wish them. > > Convergence with common usage would reduce the number of superficial > differences which so put off people who have a look at Forth. It would > focus differences (and thus learning curve) on the aspects of Forth which > are *meaningfully* unique. > > True, it's not the Forth we grew up with. So what? Neither is C (K&R->ANSI) > nor Unix (->Linux) nor most other technologies which have enjoyed dominance > in the tech world. Forth really could do with a strong jolt of evolution. > > Andy Valencia > Home page:http://www.vsta.org/andy/ > To contact me:http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 17:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <kh7r8u$1p3$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #20322 |
Alex McDonald wrote: >> I'm still puzzled why the Forth world doesn't just converge with common >> usage on areas which are orthogonal to the true distinctiveness of Forth. >> 0x1234 for hex, 0123 for octal, 5.5 for float/double, 5L for long int. >> And then, // for comment to end of line. "const" for constant, and >> so forth. Probably then->endif, and stop SHOUTING AT THE COMPUTER, >> Lower case has won for control structures. > > variable -> var > 2variable -> longvar dvar, if you are consistent with d@ d!. > value -> int > 2value -> longint dint. > 5.5 is float on a par with 5.5e0, and replace double with 5.5d We don't actually have separate float/double data types. > Permit # $ % & (decimal, hex, binary, octal) as prefixes on any number > format, including float Yes, though octal really isn't of much use. > Drop WORD BASE [COMPILE] and STATE How to do pictured number output without base? BASE-EXECUTE might count as replacement for BASE - BASE itself is then hidden in #. For input, we don't BASE much nowadays. The rest: mostly a done deal. With COMP: you don't need STATE anymore. > Replace all 2xxx (2swap 2@ 2! etc) with Dxxx (dswap d@ d!) d@ and d! are a bit different, 2! has a defined big endian order of the two words. Adding d@ and d! isn't a problem, and aliasing the 2xxx words with dxxx neither. Note that the 2xxx words are much more often used with addr len strings today than with double integers, especially on 64 bit machines. > Drop S" and S\" in favour of " quoted strings Gforth has that now through recognizers (S\" is replaced). > Recognise UTF-8 encodings as a first class citizen and redefine COUNT > and C@ accordingly We have that, but they cre called XC@ and XC@+. I don't see a problem in that, C@ and C! are used for bytes in a lot of code, not for characters as such. > None of these is likely to fly, however much I might wish them. It's not such a big step. The question is really: Why should one 70s language mimic the other 70s language? BTW: We do have some convergencies from the rest of the world with Forth, too. Lua and Go e.g. can return multiple values. Language syntax today is less pedantic (e.g. Go allows to drop the semicolon at the end of line). Fast compiles seem to matter - Eclipse compiles Java stuff in the background, while you still edit it, and Go also compiles pretty quick. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 16:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <51377252$0$6344$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #20347 |
In article <kh7r8u$1p3$1@online.de>, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: >Alex McDonald wrote: >>> I'm still puzzled why the Forth world doesn't just converge with common >>> usage on areas which are orthogonal to the true distinctiveness of Forth. >>> 0x1234 for hex, 0123 for octal, 5.5 for float/double, 5L for long int. >>> And then, // for comment to end of line. "const" for constant, and >>> so forth. Probably then->endif, and stop SHOUTING AT THE COMPUTER, >>> Lower case has won for control structures. >> >> variable -> var >> 2variable -> longvar > >dvar, if you are consistent with d@ d!. > >> value -> int >> 2value -> longint > >dint. > >> 5.5 is float on a par with 5.5e0, and replace double with 5.5d > >We don't actually have separate float/double data types. > >> Permit # $ % & (decimal, hex, binary, octal) as prefixes on any number >> format, including float > >Yes, though octal really isn't of much use. > >> Drop WORD BASE [COMPILE] and STATE > >How to do pictured number output without base? BASE-EXECUTE might count as >replacement for BASE - BASE itself is then hidden in #. For input, we don't >BASE much nowadays. The rest: mostly a done deal. With COMP: you don't >need STATE anymore. > >> Replace all 2xxx (2swap 2@ 2! etc) with Dxxx (dswap d@ d!) > >d@ and d! are a bit different, 2! has a defined big endian order of the two >words. Adding d@ and d! isn't a problem, and aliasing the 2xxx words with >dxxx neither. Note that the 2xxx words are much more often used with addr >len strings today than with double integers, especially on 64 bit machines. Better use the prefix P for pairs with defined order. Then we can introduced SPSWAP for ROT and PSSWAP for -ROT for less memory burden. > >> Drop S" and S\" in favour of " quoted strings > >Gforth has that now through recognizers (S\" is replaced). Having $. instead of TYPE and rid of ." I would add. Groetjes Albert >-- >Bernd Paysan >"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" >http://bernd-paysan.de/ > -- 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 | Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 17:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <slrnkjf31i.nls.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| In reply to | #20348 |
I've been lately browsing scanned "Forth Dimensions" editions, and I'm afraid - having in mind all the complainings I read (written during transition to Forth-83), that such proposals: "let's replace this with that" (or similar) are going to kill (the remainings of) Forth completely. What for? Even, if it's not that pretty - still it works, and has been used already in many programs, that won't anymore work after such "polishment". Which - it seems - shall be done just to replace uppercase "VARIABLE" with lowercase "var" (big deal, indeed). Everyone, who needs it - can just define: : var VARIABLE ; ...and use it in their programs. What's the problem? I also read there quite convincing advice, to introduce new words into standard only after they gain wide acceptance (not by "committee", but by users), and there is evidence, that they are commonly used. Not as quite new "inventions". (I'm aware, that I don't have the experience of anyone of you - just my 2 c) -- The consensus was, as usual in this community, that there is no consensus. (RA)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-05 18:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <d_ednbdaSa18F6vMnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20320 |
Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> wrote: > albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >> So according to you the standard implies that >> if you accept $1789 as a hex number, you must also except >> 0$1789 as a hex number. >> I don't believe many Forth's live up to that. > > I'm still puzzled why the Forth world doesn't just converge with common > usage on areas which are orthogonal to the true distinctiveness of Forth. > 0x1234 for hex, 0123 for octal, 5.5 for float/double, 5L for long int. What the hell for? Octal is barely used at for anything. > And then, // for comment to end of line. "const" for constant, and > so forth. Probably then->endif, and stop SHOUTING AT THE COMPUTER, > Lower case has won for control structures. Lower case is usual Forth these days. > Convergence with common usage would reduce the number of superficial > differences which so put off people who have a look at Forth. It > would focus differences (and thus learning curve) on the aspects of > Forth which are *meaningfully* unique. > > True, it's not the Forth we grew up with. So what? Neither is C > (K&R->ANSI) nor Unix (->Linux) nor most other technologies which > have enjoyed dominance in the tech world. Forth really could do > with a strong jolt of evolution. And how does mimicking a 1970s-era language count as evolution? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 13:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1303061332500.91819@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #20327 |
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Andrew Haley wrote: > And how does mimicking a 1970s-era language count as evolution? > > Andrew. Which 1970's language are you referring -- Forth or C 8-)? I would point out that C was influenced by Algol (a 1960's? language), and has itself influenced many other languages. C++, Tcl, Python and numerous other scripting languages have adopted C's literal conversion methodologies, and that simply makes them consistent, not obsolete. How would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common practice (and therefore more inviting for those who use other languages) in any way harm the language? Clearly I agree with Andy. Cheers, Rob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 19:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <slrnkjf8d5.sn3.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| In reply to | #20351 |
In comp.lang.forth, Rob Sciuk wrote: > methodologies, and that simply makes them consistent, not obsolete. How > would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common practice (and > therefore more inviting for those who use other languages) in any way harm > the language? And how would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common practice (whatever it is) in any way make the language "more inviting"? If someone likes C - most probably will still prefer C, not "Forth disguised as C". -- The consensus was, as usual in this community, that there is no consensus. (RA)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 14:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1303061424070.91819@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #20352 |
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Zbiggy wrote: > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:11:30 +0000 (UTC) > From: Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > Subject: Re: Forth convergence with rest of world > > In comp.lang.forth, Rob Sciuk wrote: > >> methodologies, and that simply makes them consistent, not obsolete. How >> would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common practice (and >> therefore more inviting for those who use other languages) in any way harm >> the language? > > And how would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common > practice (whatever it is) in any way make the language "more inviting"? > > If someone likes C - most probably will still prefer C, not "Forth disguised > as C". > I use both. Don't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 19:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <slrnkjfa39.ufr.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
| In reply to | #20353 |
In comp.lang.forth, Rob Sciuk wrote: > I use both. Don't you? Yes - that's why I don't need any of them to pretend the other one. But - in case of need(?) - it's much easier to "rename" Forth words than C keywords. No need to wait for any standarization. -- The consensus was, as usual in this community, that there is no consensus. (RA)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 09:26 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <A6udnSh9eYDsBarMnZ2dnUVZ_t4AAAAA@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20352 |
On 3/6/13 9:11 AM, Zbiggy wrote: > In comp.lang.forth, Rob Sciuk wrote: > >> methodologies, and that simply makes them consistent, not obsolete. How >> would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common practice (and >> therefore more inviting for those who use other languages) in any way harm >> the language? > > And how would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common > practice (whatever it is) in any way make the language "more inviting"? > > If someone likes C - most probably will still prefer C, not "Forth disguised > as C". > Correct. 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 | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 09:26 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <A6udnSl9eYDQBarMnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20351 |
On 3/6/13 8:49 AM, Rob Sciuk wrote: > On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> And how does mimicking a 1970s-era language count as evolution? >> >> Andrew. > > Which 1970's language are you referring -- Forth or C 8-)? > > I would point out that C was influenced by Algol (a 1960's? language), > and has itself influenced many other languages. C++, Tcl, Python and > numerous other scripting languages have adopted C's literal conversion > methodologies, and that simply makes them consistent, not obsolete. How > would making Forth literal conversion consistent with common practice > (and therefore more inviting for those who use other languages) in any > way harm the language? It would harm the many users of Forth who have followed Forth common usage for many years and in many lines of code. It is never advisable to change common practice. 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 15:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <yoKdnXqzvt7GK6rMnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20351 |
Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> And how does mimicking a 1970s-era language count as evolution? > > Which 1970's language are you referring -- Forth or C 8-)? I believe the suggestion was that Forth mimic C. > I would point out that C was influenced by Algol (a 1960's? > language), and has itself influenced many other languages. C++, > Tcl, Python and numerous other scripting languages have adopted C's > literal conversion methodologies, and that simply makes them > consistent, not obsolete. How would making Forth literal conversion > consistent with common practice (and therefore more inviting for > those who use other languages) in any way harm the language? How would it help? Forth isn't like those languages, and bolting on a bunch of pointless number prefixes isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't like unusual languages. It certainly isn't goint to make the language better for its users. This is just cargo cult thinking: C is successful, C has these number prefixes, so if we add them to Forth, hey, we'll be more successful. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 22:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <20130306220048.2640.3017@andy-n810> |
| In reply to | #20351 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > It is never advisable to > change common practice. All we're saying is that, for 99.9999 (probably more 9's) percent of programmers, they see 0xFF and they know what you mean. They see $FF and they say "wtf?". We're arguing aligning Forth with the bigger picture of common practice, and yes, at the expense of the (few remaining) faithful. Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-06 12:09 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <3e2dneCZUOcUI6rMnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20359 |
On 3/6/13 12:04 PM, Andy Valencia wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> It is never advisable to >> change common practice. > > All we're saying is that, for 99.9999 (probably more 9's) percent of > programmers, they see 0xFF and they know what you mean. They see $FF and > they say "wtf?". We're arguing aligning Forth with the bigger picture of > common practice, and yes, at the expense of the (few remaining) faithful. > > Andy Valencia > Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ > To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html There's a lot to learn about Forth beyond number conventions. Unless someone is sufficiently motivated to learn about Forth, 0x prefixes won't help. For someone who *is* so motivated, Forth's numbers will be trivial. 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-07 04:24 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Forth convergence with rest of world |
| Message-ID | <Isidnd-unNRD96XMnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #20359 |
Andy Valencia <user@vsta.org> wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> It is never advisable to >> change common practice. > > All we're saying is that, for 99.9999 (probably more 9's) percent of > programmers, they see 0xFF and they know what you mean. They see > $FF and they say "wtf?". It depends on which group of programmers you choose. $ is a common prefix that will be recognized by many assembly language programmers. For what it's worth, I believe that number prefixes are a pointless addition to Forth. It's common that when you're programming in a style that requires hex numbers, which usually means low-level coding, all your numbers in that section of code are hex. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to say HEX and thereafter use HEX . The resulting code, uncluttered by prefixes, has greater economy and clarity. This is one way in which Forth is superior to other languages, and definitely not one in which I think we need to mimic such languages. The superiority of HEX and DECIMAL modes when using a system interactively is obvious. > We're arguing aligning Forth with the bigger picture of common > practice, and yes, at the expense of the (few remaining) faithful. I am really starting to get annoyed at this characterization of Forth as a kind of religious cult. Please knock it off. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web