Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #42092 > unrolled thread
| Started by | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-20 08:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-09 13:21 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-20 08:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 06:34 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-21 20:11 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:29 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-23 21:03 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 03:02 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 01:13 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-21 09:26 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-03 03:46 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-03 22:56 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 02:44 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 01:14 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 05:08 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 04:06 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-10-04 07:25 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 06:49 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 09:21 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-09 13:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 22:18 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 06:59 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 04:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 05:08 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 13:57 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 13:36 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-08 13:50 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 12:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 18:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-10 14:10 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-10 23:12 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-12 10:18 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:02 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-12 08:03 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-12 14:58 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-10-13 01:25 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-12 17:38 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-12 16:39 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:12 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 07:31 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-17 22:44 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 21:47 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 01:51 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-17 20:26 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-18 21:34 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-19 17:00 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-20 01:51 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-19 16:24 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 02:44 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-20 13:01 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 22:59 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 23:57 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-21 10:58 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-11 14:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-11 14:48 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 14:59 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-12 05:28 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 18:18 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-11 15:12 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-12 05:35 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-12 06:24 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-12 14:44 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 15:18 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-20 12:36 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-18 12:54 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-19 02:47 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 15:10 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 09:15 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-02 20:35 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 17:30 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-13 19:36 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 23:54 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:04 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:09 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-14 09:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:54 +0300
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:13 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 11:38 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 02:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 02:50 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-31 18:58 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 14:18 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-31 23:43 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-07 10:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-07 23:02 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-31 14:48 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:03 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 01:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:59 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 02:19 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 17:32 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 02:14 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:10 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 16:45 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 10:26 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 02:57 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 16:06 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 09:36 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-02 21:18 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 11:56 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 18:16 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 10:53 +0000
16-bit Forth for Linux Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-20 11:13 +0100
Re: 16-bit Forth for Linux Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-20 15:08 +0000
Re: 16-bit Forth for Linux Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-20 20:11 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:10 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 12:43 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-03 03:05 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 11:11 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-03 03:07 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 11:15 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:18 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:07 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 15:41 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 20:27 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 11:00 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 11:28 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 12:18 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 17:03 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 19:29 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:47 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-04 21:15 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-11-05 03:19 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 16:37 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 20:54 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-05 06:32 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-04 21:17 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 16:44 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 01:24 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-05 14:50 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 12:49 -0800
CMFORTH Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-06 08:43 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 10:46 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 05:52 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 14:52 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:32 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-02 20:04 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 22:31 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 18:49 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 12:24 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 22:30 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 10:42 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 14:08 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 14:07 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:34 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-04 17:32 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-05 23:00 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-06 07:27 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-06 22:04 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-07 16:07 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 13:58 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 15:04 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:30 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:57 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 12:06 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-08 00:02 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 15:22 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-09 01:15 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 22:12 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 16:17 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-11 02:57 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-10 19:56 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:13 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-12 01:53 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 09:19 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 17:30 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-14 20:31 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 14:50 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 05:07 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 22:20 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-02 09:27 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 10:51 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-02 14:37 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 23:20 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 10:01 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 02:30 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 18:08 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 06:05 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 19:35 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 12:27 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 22:37 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 14:39 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 14:54 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:21 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-31 15:00 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 13:21 -0800
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 12:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Nov3.132458@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #43126 |
Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> writes:
>luni, 2 noiembrie 2015, 18:06:25 UTC+2, Mark Wills a scris:
>> On Monday, 2 November 2015 15:28:30 UTC, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> >
>> > In particular, once we have recognizers, we may be able to get rid of
>> > things like S" and TO, and then we can get rid of non-default
>> > non-immediate compilation semantics in the standard; if we manage to
>> > get there, the differences between the behaviour of the systems will
>> > be smaller, and it will hopefully be easier to find common ground.
>> >
>Why this obsession about S" and TO?
Because they are specified with non-default non-immediate compilation
semantics. That conflicts with the traditional implementation model
where there are only normal words (with default compilation semantics)
and immediate words (with immediate compilation semantics). This has
led to implementations where some things don't work under some
circumstances, divergence in implementations, and lots of discussions
and confusion. If we want a tighter standard, they are the root of
much evil.
> Because they are parsing words? There
>are plenty of parsing words in Forth! Let's get rid of all of them, including
>: ' char include cretae variable etc.
Most others do not have this problematic specification: ' and CHAR
have the state-dumb approach and their counterparts ['] and [CHAR]. :
INCLUDE CREATE VARIABLE just have default compilation semantics, so
are not problematic. Of course, in Forth-2012 CHAR and [CHAR] are
unnecessary, because we have 'A'. I think we should also have
something for '.
>In fact, a forth system with NO PARSING WORDS is more simple and more
>readable and understandable.
Probably, but I first focus on the worst things.
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56390edf$0$23784$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #43174 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: <SNIP> >Most others do not have this problematic specification: ' and CHAR >have the state-dumb approach and their counterparts ['] and [CHAR]. : >INCLUDE CREATE VARIABLE just have default compilation semantics, so >are not problematic. Of course, in Forth-2012 CHAR and [CHAR] are >unnecessary, because we have 'A'. I think we should also have >something for '. The obvious choice is '. I use 'DROP routinely because I can't remember when to use ['] and when '<blank> I think 'A' for character denotations is a bad choice, for this reason alone. (Another reason is that I find a closing character only acceptable if the enclosed stuff may contain blanks, like ") I understand that in the standard you can't go the way that 'A' may be the character A, or the dea (xt) of A' That bridge has been burned. <SNIP> >- anton -- 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 | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1b8tb$6hd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43192 |
Albert van der Horst wrote: > I understand that in the standard you can't go the way > that 'A' may be the character A, or the dea (xt) of A' > That bridge has been burned. There aren't so many words in the form A', and for longer words, it still works. I' is the only one in Gforth. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 10:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Nov4.114232@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #43192 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>Most others do not have this problematic specification: ' and CHAR
>>have the state-dumb approach and their counterparts ['] and [CHAR]. :
>>INCLUDE CREATE VARIABLE just have default compilation semantics, so
>>are not problematic. Of course, in Forth-2012 CHAR and [CHAR] are
>>unnecessary, because we have 'A'. I think we should also have
>>something for '.
>
>The obvious choice is '.
...
>I understand that in the standard you can't go the way
>that 'A' may be the character A, or the dea (xt) of A'
>That bridge has been burned.
Sure the standard can go that way; it also allows ADD to be a word and
a hex number. I would give the character recognizer priority over the
xt recognizer, because you can still use ' I' to get the xt of I'. A
more frequent conflict is probably that there are programmers who use
pairs of words BLA and 'BLA (with 'BLA being a deferred word or
somesuch).
So, if the long-term perspective is to get rid of ' and ['], then we
should be going for a different prefix.
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1cvsp$gst$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43216 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > So, if the long-term perspective is to get rid of ' and ['], then we > should be going for a different prefix. Another issue for replacement with ' is that it is frequently used as factor. IMHO we are too strict with throwing on compile-only words. A warning is completely sufficient to inform the programmer. The current recognizer- based implementation however always results in ['] compile-only-error if it ticks a compile-only-word, and therefore needs a little change. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <563a1114$0$23721$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #43221 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >Anton Ertl wrote: >> So, if the long-term perspective is to get rid of ' and ['], then we >> should be going for a different prefix. >Another issue for replacement with ' is that it is frequently used as >factor. That is probably so, but as soon as I discovered that there are problems I went into the habit of always splitting that usage into PARSE-NAME + lookup action . So for me 'something is for all practical purposes a compile-time constant, and there is no other usage. Try it! It doesn't make the code much longer and is easier to understand. >IMHO we are too strict with throwing on compile-only words. A warning is >completely sufficient to inform the programmer. The current recognizer- >based implementation however always results in ['] compile-only-error if it >ticks a compile-only-word, and therefore needs a little change. Indeed. Unless it is sure that the system will crash, allow it. You don't disallow division for the chance that the divisor is zero. >-- >Bernd Paysan >"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" >net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* >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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Nov4.153440@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #43221 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>
>> So, if the long-term perspective is to get rid of ' and ['], then we
>> should be going for a different prefix.
>
>Another issue for replacement with ' is that it is frequently used as
>factor.
Good point. So only get rid of ['].
>IMHO we are too strict with throwing on compile-only words. A warning is
>completely sufficient to inform the programmer.
But that gets suppressed by WARNINGS OFF, and the programmer is then
not informed.
> The current recognizer-
>based implementation however always results in ['] compile-only-error if it
>ticks a compile-only-word, and therefore needs a little change.
Turn COMPILE-ONLY into a noop. Works for SwiftForth. Downside:
programmers are then not informed that their program won't port to
VFX, but Stephen Pelc couldn't care less, so why should we?
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <563a40f9.15839514@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #43234 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:34:40 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote: >Turn COMPILE-ONLY into a noop. Works for SwiftForth. Downside: >programmers are then not informed that their program won't port to >VFX, but Stephen Pelc couldn't care less, so why should we? I love being patronised ... Stephen -- Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691 web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-05 23:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1gjd4$m0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43234 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>Anton Ertl wrote: >> >>> So, if the long-term perspective is to get rid of ' and ['], then we >>> should be going for a different prefix. >> >>Another issue for replacement with ' is that it is frequently used as >>factor. > > Good point. So only get rid of [']. > >>IMHO we are too strict with throwing on compile-only words. A warning is >>completely sufficient to inform the programmer. > > But that gets suppressed by WARNINGS OFF, and the programmer is then > not informed. If the programmer doesn't want warnings, he shouldn't get warnings. We might change the single flag to a bit mask to allow people to specify which warnings they want and which they don't want to see, currently it's all-or- nothing. The point is that ' IF *can* return something (there is either an xt for COMPILE, or one for EXECUTE, but both could be used to obtain further informations, SEE-XT the word and so on), so it better should return something, and then *warn* the programmer that this thing returned is not portable. >> The current recognizer- >>based implementation however always results in ['] compile-only-error if >>it ticks a compile-only-word, and therefore needs a little change. > > Turn COMPILE-ONLY into a noop. Works for SwiftForth. Downside: > programmers are then not informed that their program won't port to > VFX, but Stephen Pelc couldn't care less, so why should we? Not checking error conditions has a long history in Forth ;-). As well as writing non-portable programs. The view of the C camp is that a non- portable program is a bug, and deserves to crash, break or misbehave otherwise. Unless you are using system-specific features, which won't compile anywhere else, then it is ok. In Forth, a non-portable program is just that: non-portable. What we could also do is to turn the protection of compile-only words off and on, on demand of the user. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 07:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Nov6.082757@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #43258 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>
>> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>>>IMHO we are too strict with throwing on compile-only words. A warning is
>>>completely sufficient to inform the programmer.
>>
>> But that gets suppressed by WARNINGS OFF, and the programmer is then
>> not informed.
>
>If the programmer doesn't want warnings, he shouldn't get warnings.
Yes, if he really does not want warnings. However, what programmers
usually want is to not get warnings that they have already seen and
considered, but we don't offer an option for that. So they use
WARNINGS OFF and don't get any warnings at all.
Or one programmer puts "warnings off" somewhere, and the others on the
project then don't see warnings without actually making the decision
not to see warnings.
> We
>might change the single flag to a bit mask to allow people to specify which
>warnings they want and which they don't want to see,
That might help if programmers only want to suppress the redefined
warnings (which the programmer often does not want to suppress by
changing the program).
> currently it's all-or-
>nothing. The point is that ' IF *can* return something (there is either an
>xt for COMPILE, or one for EXECUTE, but both could be used to obtain further
>informations, SEE-XT the word and so on), so it better should return
>something, and then *warn* the programmer that this thing returned is not
>portable.
I consider the behaviour of the development version on ' IF completely
useless:
' if xt-see
: compile-only-error
-14 throw ; ok
If we want to allow ' IF because many programmers expect it to work,
then we should also give them the xt that they expect: when you
EXECUTE it, it performs the compilation semantics of IF (and when you
COMPILE, it, that's equivalent to POSTPONE IF).
>Not checking error conditions has a long history in Forth ;-). As well as
>writing non-portable programs. The view of the C camp is that a non-
>portable program is a bug, and deserves to crash, break or misbehave
>otherwise. Unless you are using system-specific features, which won't
>compile anywhere else, then it is ok.
>
>In Forth, a non-portable program is just that: non-portable.
I don't see that Forth and C are interpreted very differently for such
non-standardized things: System implementors do what they want, and
programmers complain about it. The main difference is just in the
attitude: GCC maintainers give a spin in discussions about such issues
that tries to paint such programs as buggy and their programmers as
incompetent, while in the Forth community we just say that the program
is non-standard and that systems differ in this area (and some then
even sing the praises to writing non-standard and non-portable
programs).
>What we could also do is to turn the protection of compile-only words off
>and on, on demand of the user.
I think we have not had complaints about giving an error on
text-interpreting compile-only words in interpretation state. So
compile-ony might be something we might want to check in the
(system's) text interpreter, but not in '.
I think if we have that, we don't a switch like you suggest.
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-06 22:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1j4h7$8nr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43266 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > I consider the behaviour of the development version on ' IF completely > useless: > > ' if xt-see > : compile-only-error > -14 throw ; ok That's not the current development version ;-), that's the version where I just had started the transition to use the recognizer stack, but lacked the error checks. [GCC "philosophy"] It seems to be their goal is "write once, maintain for your entire life". GCC 5.x is another case of maintenance, it breaks F.RDP; apparently everything else works. Can you take a look at it? > If we want to allow ' IF because many programmers expect it to work, > then we should also give them the xt that they expect: when you > EXECUTE it, it performs the compilation semantics of IF (and when you > COMPILE, it, that's equivalent to POSTPONE IF). Yes, that's the goal. Current git head now does that (including warning if warnings are on). >>What we could also do is to turn the protection of compile-only words off >>and on, on demand of the user. > > I think we have not had complaints about giving an error on > text-interpreting compile-only words in interpretation state. So > compile-ony might be something we might want to check in the > (system's) text interpreter, but not in '. > > I think if we have that, we don't a switch like you suggest. Sounds reasonable. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 16:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Nov7.170718@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #43276 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> I consider the behaviour of the development version on ' IF completely
>> useless:
>>
>> ' if xt-see
>> : compile-only-error
>> -14 throw ; ok
>
>That's not the current development version ;-), that's the version where I
>just had started the transition to use the recognizer stack, but lacked the
>error checks.
>
>[GCC "philosophy"]
>
>It seems to be their goal is "write once, maintain for your entire life".
>
>GCC 5.x is another case of maintenance, it breaks F.RDP; apparently
>everything else works. Can you take a look at it?
Simplified test case:
: foo 3e here 0 '0' fill f. ; foo
It seems to me that the gcc update not the culprit this time. We put
the FTOS in %xmm15 for gcc 4.8, 4.9, and into %xmm8 for all other
versions. Apparently memset() overwrites %xmm8, as is it's right
because none of the %xmm registers is callee-saved.
Ideally gcc should save the register around the call to memset(), but
it seems to me that gcc has never done that for callee-saved
registers, and in other cases tends to not to compile the explicit
register allocation for callee-saved registers that live across calls.
Possible solutions:
1) Use %xmm15 also for gcc >=5, but at one point some library function
(probably memmove() for some block lengths) may overwrite that, too.
2) Save FTOS on AMD64 (or, in general architectures, where FTOS
resides in caller-saved registers) around calls to library functions
that may use FP (or, in this case %xmm) registers.
As a short-term solution, I implemented solution 1.
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <563a0f08$0$23721$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #43216 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes: >>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >>>Most others do not have this problematic specification: ' and CHAR >>>have the state-dumb approach and their counterparts ['] and [CHAR]. : >>>INCLUDE CREATE VARIABLE just have default compilation semantics, so >>>are not problematic. Of course, in Forth-2012 CHAR and [CHAR] are >>>unnecessary, because we have 'A'. I think we should also have >>>something for '. >> >>The obvious choice is '. >... >>I understand that in the standard you can't go the way >>that 'A' may be the character A, or the dea (xt) of A' >>That bridge has been burned. >Sure the standard can go that way; it also allows ADD to be a word and >a hex number. I would give the character recognizer priority over the >xt recognizer, because you can still use ' I' to get the xt of I'. A >more frequent conflict is probably that there are programmers who use >pairs of words BLA and 'BLA (with 'BLA being a deferred word or >somesuch). If the programmer is wise 'BLA is defined as ' BLA CONSTANT 'BLA or somesuch. I can't see the difference with 1 CONSTANT 1 to make looking up numbers faster. The redefinition hides the earlier one so it blocks the possibility to find the word 1 or 'BLA using denotations/recognizers. We are used to that. >So, if the long-term perspective is to get rid of ' and ['], then we >should be going for a different prefix. I expected that, but I don't like it. OTOH to prevent confusion, having a different prefix for nametoken/dea from that for execution token, might be a good idea. I tried % in the past. Never came across a word that started with %. >- anton Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 15:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1d34n$sg5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43225 |
Albert van der Horst wrote: > I expected that, but I don't like it. OTOH to prevent confusion, > having a different prefix for nametoken/dea from that for execution > token, might be a good idea. I tried % in the past. Never came > across a word that started with %. % is the standard binary prefix. You may use ` (backtick), still inside the ASCII range, and doesn't occur, either. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Nov4.153020@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #43225 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>
>>Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes:
>>>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>>>>Most others do not have this problematic specification: ' and CHAR
>>>>have the state-dumb approach and their counterparts ['] and [CHAR]. :
>>>>INCLUDE CREATE VARIABLE just have default compilation semantics, so
>>>>are not problematic. Of course, in Forth-2012 CHAR and [CHAR] are
>>>>unnecessary, because we have 'A'. I think we should also have
>>>>something for '.
>>>
>>>The obvious choice is '.
>>...
>>>I understand that in the standard you can't go the way
>>>that 'A' may be the character A, or the dea (xt) of A'
>>>That bridge has been burned.
>
>>Sure the standard can go that way; it also allows ADD to be a word and
>>a hex number. I would give the character recognizer priority over the
>>xt recognizer, because you can still use ' I' to get the xt of I'. A
>>more frequent conflict is probably that there are programmers who use
>>pairs of words BLA and 'BLA (with 'BLA being a deferred word or
>>somesuch).
>
>If the programmer is wise 'BLA is defined as
>' BLA CONSTANT 'BLA
>or somesuch.
Not in the examples I saw. I don't remember if it was a deferred word
or a variable used for emulating a deferred word, as in:
: bla 'bla @ execute ;
but it was something along these lines.
>I tried % in the past. Never came
>across a word that started with %.
Binary prefix, but there are few word names with only 0 and 1 in the
name (except, on some systems, 0 and 1).
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 11:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <113d8df7-37ab-4c54-b192-100570b9ac98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43087 |
> resolving that issue. It will mean that some system owners will need > to change their systems *at some point in the future*. So be it. > Man up. Make the tough decisions. It *will* be for the better if we > can get to a stage where we can write portable code more easily. I'm a Forth-system owner. Explain me please, how someone will force me to change my system :) I can simple rename my language and say goodbye to Forth _name_. I see no help and can't point my customers to any kind of authority of Forth committee. I'm not alone with it. Committee peoples should choose what they want - to do something real or to keep their virtual 'authority' for several more years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 12:06 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <qdWdndAIH-f8HKfLnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #43238 |
On 11/4/15 9:57 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: >> resolving that issue. It will mean that some system owners will need >> to change their systems *at some point in the future*. So be it. >> Man up. Make the tough decisions. It *will* be for the better if we >> can get to a stage where we can write portable code more easily. > > I'm a Forth-system owner. Explain me please, how someone will force > me to change my system :) I can simple rename my language and say > goodbye to Forth _name_. I see no help and can't point my customers > to any kind of authority of Forth committee. I'm not alone with it. > Committee peoples should choose what they want - to do something real > or to keep their virtual 'authority' for several more years. > There is certainly a committee you can point to, and share your opinions with if you choose. Anton, Stephen, and other members here on comp.lang.forth will help you if you just ask. You can even be a member if you wish. Of course it's entirely up to you whether you want to follow a standard or not, no one will "force" you. Most of us that have customers find it helpful to follow a standard because it's reassuring to them that, if necessary, another person or system can handle their software. None of us is immortal. 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 | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b73212f-ef20-4ea3-a301-b0f6a4edde46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43240 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:06:28 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/4/15 9:57 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >> resolving that issue. It will mean that some system owners will need > >> to change their systems *at some point in the future*. So be it. > >> Man up. Make the tough decisions. It *will* be for the better if we > >> can get to a stage where we can write portable code more easily. > > > > I'm a Forth-system owner. Explain me please, how someone will force > > me to change my system :) I can simple rename my language and say > > goodbye to Forth _name_. I see no help and can't point my customers > > to any kind of authority of Forth committee. I'm not alone with it. > > Committee peoples should choose what they want - to do something real > > or to keep their virtual 'authority' for several more years. > > > > There is certainly a committee you can point to, and share your opinions > with if you choose. Anton, Stephen, and other members here on > comp.lang.forth will help you if you just ask. You can even be a member > if you wish. Of course it's entirely up to you whether you want to > follow a standard or not, no one will "force" you. Most of us that have > customers find it helpful to follow a standard because it's reassuring > to them that, if necessary, another person or system can handle their > software. None of us is immortal. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth Elizabeth Rather believes that she alone gets to use the word "Standard" (with a capital 'S') and that she can dismiss everybody else as being non-standard --- the ANS-Forth Standard is a bat that she uses for beating people over the head --- ANS-Forth went through ANSI without a reference compiler being written for it, and hence without being tested, because Elizabeth Rather was in a hurry to be given the right to denounce Forth Inc.'s competition for being non-standard. My Stundurd Forth was given that name to mock Elizabeth Rather --- if you can't be Standard, then you can be Stundurd!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 14:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59780efa-f707-4e81-bb94-f3413e643add@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43240 |
четверг, 5 ноября 2015 г., 1:06:28 UTC+3 пользователь Elizabeth D. Rather написал: > On 11/4/15 9:57 AM, Ilya Tarasov wrote: > >> resolving that issue. It will mean that some system owners will need > >> to change their systems *at some point in the future*. So be it. > >> Man up. Make the tough decisions. It *will* be for the better if we > >> can get to a stage where we can write portable code more easily. > > > > I'm a Forth-system owner. Explain me please, how someone will force > > me to change my system :) I can simple rename my language and say > > goodbye to Forth _name_. I see no help and can't point my customers > > to any kind of authority of Forth committee. I'm not alone with it. > > Committee peoples should choose what they want - to do something real > > or to keep their virtual 'authority' for several more years. > > > > There is certainly a committee you can point to, and share your opinions > with if you choose. Anton, Stephen, and other members here on > comp.lang.forth will help you if you just ask. You can even be a member > if you wish. Of course it's entirely up to you whether you want to > follow a standard or not, no one will "force" you. Most of us that have > customers find it helpful to follow a standard because it's reassuring > to them that, if necessary, another person or system can handle their > software. None of us is immortal. > > 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." > ================================================== Excuse me, what kind of point I can make to committee? Falling from Top50 list to Top100, Forth is not an argument itself. So pointing to a committee of forgotten language is a misfeature when I conversate with customers. What kind of help you suggesting me? With 20+ years experience with Forth there are very small chances I've miss something really important. I never told with Stephen Pelc, but Ertl seems to have very simple strategy when asked. I've tried to contact him several times, and he simple stops to answer, if question is not elementary. It was very interesting for me how he works with his customers (or should I ask him how to add two numbers on stack instead?), but he stops the dialog at this point. Now I think he just has nothing to answer, because he has no real project with Forth, with real customers, technical requirements, milestones etc. It is not so critical for university, but he should be honest. It is a very important problem how we must provide keeping of Forth ideas. I'm sure it is not a question of reproducing Forth words year by year, with only chosen persons who can write names and stack notations. I'm starting with explanations _why_ Forth words do things this way, and programmers can understand _how_ to implement it. Of course, I'm lose my 'aura of exclusively Forth master' at moment :) But I'm sure it is unfair to keep others at arm's length from Forth details. So they can write his own Forths or parts of Forth, if needed. No standard here, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 00:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1lvp9$i5t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43332 |
Ilya Tarasov wrote: > What kind of help you suggesting me? With 20+ years experience with Forth > there are very small chances I've miss something really important. I never > told with Stephen Pelc, but Ertl seems to have very simple strategy when > asked. I've tried to contact him several times, and he simple stops to > answer, if question is not elementary. It was very interesting for me how > he works with his customers (or should I ask him how to add two numbers on > stack instead?), but he stops the dialog at this point. Now I think he > just has nothing to answer, because he has no real project with Forth, > with real customers, technical requirements, milestones etc. It is not so > critical for university, but he should be honest. Maybe you miss some point in the discussion with the free software side, and then, further discussion is pointless. You have customers in a business relationship, the main reason you have customers for is that you get their money. You have contributors in a free software relationship. That's a very different relationship, and unlike the customer relationship, more contributors are not necessarily a good thing. Non-contribution users are not important at all. The free software process, while so much different from the commercial software process, still produces high-quality and important software, and to the users (which don't really matter for the free software side), it actually competes with commercial software. In a business relationship, when you are my customer and I'm the implementer, I have the control over the system, and you can send me feature requests and bug reports, but you can't fix your problems yourself. I must then add the features and fix the bugs. In a free software environment, there is no such direct dependency: I don't have full control, so you can add all the features you like and fix all the bugs yourself, you get the code and the right to modify. You can send a bug report *or* you can send a patch, both is seen as contribution. And "projects" is the next point. As we don't need that many Forth programmers to successfully complete a project, projects don't help us. When you have 3 Forth programmers doing a project, which can barely be done with 100 Java programmers, what does it help Forth's rank list? Even when Forth gets half of all these projects, it's still at 3% of the Java population count. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web