Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #57272 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-13 22:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-14 21:24 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
[Random] Escape the trolls Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 22:46 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 10:53 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 11:26 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:30 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 12:45 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:02 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:13 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:18 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 13:25 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:49 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-14 21:59 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls josv@planet.nl - 2017-04-15 04:09 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 12:45 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 18:50 +0200
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:45 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 14:46 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 16:24 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-15 00:34 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-15 00:36 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 20:58 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 00:24 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-14 21:40 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 02:32 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-15 07:50 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-15 08:15 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 13:10 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 19:27 +0200
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 14:25 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-17 14:05 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-16 01:42 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 21:51 -0400
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-16 02:10 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 14:29 +0200
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-16 13:58 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-16 16:11 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-16 22:18 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-04-17 07:54 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-17 23:32 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-04-17 23:33 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 22:33 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 22:52 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-15 07:52 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-15 11:20 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-15 11:53 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-15 19:10 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-17 14:19 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Bernd Linsel <bl1@gmx.com> - 2017-04-15 20:21 +0200
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-15 20:33 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Bernd Linsel <bl1@gmx.com> - 2017-04-16 11:50 +0200
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-16 14:22 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-16 14:47 +0000
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 16:55 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-15 17:03 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-15 11:37 +0100
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 16:51 -0700
Re: [Random] Escape the trolls rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 21:24 -0400
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 20:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b5a1faa-dfa6-470e-8797-ce2e4f117e7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57334 |
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 4:34:40 PM UTC-7, Alex wrote:
> On 4/15/2017 00:24, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 3:35:55 PM UTC-7, Julian Fondren wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 4:46:18 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>> These ANS-Forth experts seem to know almost nothing about
> >>> ANS-Forth! Code that is trivial to write in ANS-Forth they expect
> >>> the compiler-writer to provide to them as a non-standard
> >>> extension.
> >>
> >> S\" is a very widely implemented standard extension that is also
> >> pretty easy to implement on the Forths I've found that lack it.
> >
> > It may be easy to implement, but you haven't done so --- you are
> > waiting for somebody smart to implement it for you.
> >
> > I don't know what S\" does --- if anybody knows what this does and
> > can describe it, I will try to write it --- if anybody has already
> > written it, and their code is ANS-Forth, I'll put it in the
> > novice-package.
> >
>
> Here's a challenge. Read the spec & write it without having others do
> your homework.
>
> http://forth-standard.org/standard/file/Sq
>
> See if you can do it without requiring 2500 lines of novice package to
> be included first. We'll wait.
You'll wait forever for me to write an ANS-Forth program that doesn't require NOVICE.4TH to be already loaded.
I wrote the code, but I require both NOVICE.4TH and STRING-STACK.4TH (the code is actually in STRING-STACK.4TH).
1.) I read that Forth-200x description of S\" and found this bizarre restriction:
"A program shall not alter the returned string."
I don't know why they have that restriction, and I certainly don't. Like everything in STRING-STACK.4TH my FIX\$ uses the string-stack. I also have S\" that is like the Forth-200x S\" in that it parses from the input stream, but it returns a string in the heap.
2.) They also said this:
"An ambiguous condition exists if a \ is placed before any character, other than those defined in here."
They sure do love the term "ambiguous condition." I just abort with an error message, because this is an error.
3.) I glanced over Julien Fondren's code and saw that it doesn't work in interpretive mode. That is another weird restriction that I don't have.
4.) I don't support \" because I have \q for that. It seems confusing to have \" inside of a " delimited string --- I suppose I could write a smart PARSE that gets the whole string --- I didn't bother with this.
5.) My tests are case-insensitive --- so \q and \Q are the same.
Here is the code:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ ********
\ ******** S\"
\ ******** described here: http://forth-standard.org/standard/core/Seq
\ ******** The Forth-200x version has this problem: "A program shall not alter the returned string."
\ ******** My version uses the string-stack, so there is no such problem.
\ ******** I don't support \" though, as I have \q for that.
\ ******** My codes are case-insensitive, so \q and \Q are the same.
\ ********
: hexchar>n ( char -- n )
s" 0123456789ABCDEF" >$
ifindc$ dup -1 = abort" *** HEXCHAR>N given a char that wasn't hex ***"
;
-3
enum last-\ \ the last char was \
enum last-\x \ the last chars were \x
enum last-done \ the last chars are irrelevent
drop
\ The LAST parameter given to <S\"> is one of the above enums (all negative), or is the hexadecimal value of the last char.
: <fix\$> { last char-adr | datum lc-datum -- last done? } \ DONE? is always FALSE
char-adr c@ to datum
datum char-lower to lc-datum
last last-done = if
[char] \ lc-datum = if last-\ false exit then \ backslash
datum char+cstr last-done false exit \ raw char
then
last last-\ = if \ these should all be lower-case because we compare to LC-DATUM
[char] a lc-datum = if 7 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ bell
[char] b lc-datum = if 8 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ backspace
[char] e lc-datum = if 27 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ escape
[char] e lc-datum = if 27 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ escape
[char] f lc-datum = if 12 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ FF (form feed)
[char] l lc-datum = if 10 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ LF (line feed)
[char] m lc-datum = if 13 char+cstr 10 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ CR/LF
[char] n lc-datum = if 13 char+cstr 10 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ CR/LF
[char] q lc-datum = if 34 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ double-quote
[char] r lc-datum = if 13 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ CR (carriage return)
[char] t lc-datum = if 9 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ HT (horizontal tab)
[char] v lc-datum = if 11 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ VT (vertical tab)
[char] z lc-datum = if 0 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ null
[char] \ lc-datum = if 92 char+cstr last-done false exit then \ back-slash
[char] x lc-datum = if last-\x false exit then \ start hex
true abort" *** S\quote given \ with an illegal code after the \ char ***"
then
last last-\x = if datum hexchar>n false exit then
\ LAST is the hex value of the high digit
last 4 lshift datum hexchar>n + char+cstr last-done false exit ;
\ I don't support \" because I have \q for that.
\ It is confusing to have \" inside of a string that is " delimited (and S\" is " delimited).
\ I could write a smart version of PARSE that gets the whole string, but that would complicate the code unduly.
: fix\$ ( -- ) \ string: str -- new-str
<cstr last-done ['] <fix\$> forward$ 2drop cstr> count mut>$ ;
: s\" ( -- adr cnt ) \ stream: string \ this returns a string in the heap that will need DEALLOC eventually
[char] " parse mut>$
fix\$ $> ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 00:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocs73e$h5q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57345 |
On 4/14/2017 11:58 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > 1.) I read that Forth-200x description of S\" and found this bizarre > restriction: "A program shall not alter the returned string." I don't > know why they have that restriction, and I certainly don't. Like > everything in STRING-STACK.4TH my FIX\$ uses the string-stack. I also > have S\" that is like the Forth-200x S\" in that it parses from the > input stream, but it returns a string in the heap. This is so simple even a non-Forth programmer like me knows the answer. The restriction of not altering the string makes it possible for the string to be in non-volatile memory. :) Yes, your code is written with a certain mindset which precludes a lot of systems. > 2.) They also said this: "An ambiguous condition exists if a \ is > placed before any character, other than those defined in here." They > sure do love the term "ambiguous condition." I just abort with an > error message, because this is an error. That would be compatible with the ANS standard. Any you thought you couldn't write ANS compatible code, didn't you? > 3.) I glanced over Julien Fondren's code and saw that it doesn't work > in interpretive mode. That is another weird restriction that I don't > have. > > 4.) I don't support \" because I have \q for that. It seems confusing > to have \" inside of a " delimited string --- I suppose I could write > a smart PARSE that gets the whole string --- I didn't bother with > this. My god! You live in a sheltered world. Lots of languages support the quote character in quote delimited strings. I can't think of one that doesn't, but that's not saying a lot coming from a rank novice. > 5.) My tests are case-insensitive --- so \q and \Q are the same. > > Here is the code: So why do you have such a hard time understanding simple specifications that even a rank novice such as myself can figure out? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-14 21:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9fed02d-1209-467d-8b04-751d5431f8d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57346 |
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 9:24:09 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 4/14/2017 11:58 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > > 1.) I read that Forth-200x description of S\" and found this bizarre > > restriction: "A program shall not alter the returned string." I don't > > know why they have that restriction, and I certainly don't. Like > > everything in STRING-STACK.4TH my FIX\$ uses the string-stack. I also > > have S\" that is like the Forth-200x S\" in that it parses from the > > input stream, but it returns a string in the heap. > > This is so simple even a non-Forth programmer like me knows the answer. > The restriction of not altering the string makes it possible for the > string to be in non-volatile memory. :) > > Yes, your code is written with a certain mindset which precludes a lot > of systems. You are saying that S\" only works at compile-time? I didn't read about that restriction anywhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 02:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocseji$uo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57347 |
On 4/15/2017 12:40 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 9:24:09 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 4/14/2017 11:58 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> 1.) I read that Forth-200x description of S\" and found this bizarre >>> restriction: "A program shall not alter the returned string." I don't >>> know why they have that restriction, and I certainly don't. Like >>> everything in STRING-STACK.4TH my FIX\$ uses the string-stack. I also >>> have S\" that is like the Forth-200x S\" in that it parses from the >>> input stream, but it returns a string in the heap. >> >> This is so simple even a non-Forth programmer like me knows the answer. >> The restriction of not altering the string makes it possible for the >> string to be in non-volatile memory. :) >> >> Yes, your code is written with a certain mindset which precludes a lot >> of systems. > > You are saying that S\" only works at compile-time? I didn't read about that > restriction anywhere. What did you read? You clearly didn't read the section of the ANS spec I posted. Here is the relevant part again... "Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined." -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 07:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr15.095051@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #57350 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
[On S\"]
>"Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined."
That's probably a bug, but yes, that's Forth-2012.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 08:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr15.101540@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #57352 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>[On S\"]
>>"Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined."
>
>That's probably a bug, but yes, that's Forth-2012.
Actually, the bug is that the references in the SEE section are wrong:
It should say:
SEE: 3.4.1 Parsing, 11.6.2.2266 S\"
And 11.6.2.2266 defines the interpretation semantics.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 13:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <octjvl$k4b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57355 |
On 4/15/2017 4:15 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> [On S\"] >>> "Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined." >> >> That's probably a bug, but yes, that's Forth-2012. > > Actually, the bug is that the references in the SEE section are wrong: > It should say: > > SEE: 3.4.1 Parsing, 11.6.2.2266 S\" > > And 11.6.2.2266 defines the interpretation semantics. Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 in the document. I'm looking at "Forth 2012 RC2", 13 th November, 2013. I don't find anything in the appendix about S\", only in earlier sections and in a list of words added. Am I looking at the right document? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 19:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dtjp8xgwy6r8$.ceozj0eimj01$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #57378 |
Op Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:10:06 -0400 schreef rickman: > On 4/15/2017 4:15 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: >> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>> [On S\"] >>>> "Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined." >>> >>> That's probably a bug, but yes, that's Forth-2012. >> >> Actually, the bug is that the references in the SEE section are wrong: >> It should say: >> >> SEE: 3.4.1 Parsing, 11.6.2.2266 S\" >> >> And 11.6.2.2266 defines the interpretation semantics. > > Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 in the > document. I'm looking at "Forth 2012 RC2", 13 th November, 2013. I > don't find anything in the appendix about S\", only in earlier sections > and in a list of words added. > > Am I looking at the right document? 10 november 2014 has it. groet Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 14:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <octode$45p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57380 |
On 4/15/2017 1:27 PM, Coos Haak wrote: > Op Sat, 15 Apr 2017 13:10:06 -0400 schreef rickman: > >> On 4/15/2017 4:15 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: >>> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >>>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>>> [On S\"] >>>>> "Interpretation: Interpretation semantics for this word are undefined." >>>> >>>> That's probably a bug, but yes, that's Forth-2012. >>> >>> Actually, the bug is that the references in the SEE section are wrong: >>> It should say: >>> >>> SEE: 3.4.1 Parsing, 11.6.2.2266 S\" >>> >>> And 11.6.2.2266 defines the interpretation semantics. >> >> Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 in the >> document. I'm looking at "Forth 2012 RC2", 13 th November, 2013. I >> don't find anything in the appendix about S\", only in earlier sections >> and in a list of words added. >> >> Am I looking at the right document? > > 10 november 2014 has it. Jeeze, I was focusing on the day and ignoring the year in the copies I found on the web. Ok, I'm up to date now. So I see S\" is in File Ext as well where it says it can be used in interpretive mode following the pattern of S" . So the core function allows for use in definitions which are stored in non-volatile memory while the File Ext version can be used interpretatively because they are RAM based? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr17.160536@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #57384 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
[S\"]
>So the core function
>allows for use in definitions which are stored in non-volatile memory
>while the File Ext version can be used interpretatively because they are
>RAM based?
Definitions may also be stored in writable RAM; your program is still
not allowed to modify it. The result of an interpretive S\" may be
stored in non-writable memory. For S", the scenario could look like
this: INCLUDED mmaps the file containing the source code read-only,
and that file is kept around for the rest of the session; REFILL and
PARSE-NAME/PARSE go through it. Because interpretive S" knows that
the string returned by PARSE lives for the rest of the session, it is
implemted just as:
: S"-int '"' parse ;
That would require keeping the typed-in lines around for the rest of
the session, too. And it does not fit interpretive S\", because S\"
performs \-sequence replacement. Still, a system that is anal about
that sentence in the standard might make the interpretive S\" buffer
read-only once the translation is complete.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 01:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kosdw43552l5004@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57378 |
rickman wrote: > > SEE: 3.4.1 Parsing, 11.6.2.2266 S\" > > > > And 11.6.2.2266 defines the interpretation semantics. > > Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 in the > document. https://forth-standard.org/standard/file/Seq These interpretation semantics seem to be an extension for the File-Access wordset, probably to be able to define certain file names (e.g. with quotes in or around them). -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "Police arrested two kids yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off." -- Tommy Cooper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-15 21:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ocuigv$h30$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57412 |
On 4/15/2017 9:42 PM, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > rickman wrote: > >>> SEE: 3.4.1 Parsing, 11.6.2.2266 S\" >>> >>> And 11.6.2.2266 defines the interpretation semantics. >> >> Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 in the >> document. > > https://forth-standard.org/standard/file/Seq > > These interpretation semantics seem to be an extension for the > File-Access wordset, probably to be able to define certain file names > (e.g. with quotes in or around them). I was working from a year too old copy of the standard. I've got the more recent now. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 02:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0koseo6364h69006@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57414 |
rickman wrote:
> > > Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 in
> > > the document.
> >
> > https://forth-standard.org/standard/file/Seq
> >
> > These interpretation semantics seem to be an extension for the
> > File-Access wordset, probably to be able to define certain file
> > names (e.g. with quotes in or around them).
>
> I was working from a year too old copy of the standard. I've got the
> more recent now.
I don't have any.
I'm more or less a newb (in Forth, although I already wrote some code
in Acornsoft Forth in 1983 -- I am not a newb in programming), trying
to write a simple Forth in assembler (as a pet asm project).
Is the online version of the standard up-to-date?
--
Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to
earn better than a 'C', the idea must be feasible."
-- A Yale University management professor in response to student
Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery
service (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 14:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pakpo9xoaa0r$.nkhk5qy7kjxy$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #57415 |
Op Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:10:10 +0000 (UTC) schreef Rudy Velthuis: > rickman wrote: > >>> > Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 in >>> > the document. >>> >>> https://forth-standard.org/standard/file/Seq >>> >>> These interpretation semantics seem to be an extension for the >>> File-Access wordset, probably to be able to define certain file >>> names (e.g. with quotes in or around them). >> >> I was working from a year too old copy of the standard. I've got the >> more recent now. > > I don't have any. > > I'm more or less a newb (in Forth, although I already wrote some code > in Acornsoft Forth in 1983 -- I am not a newb in programming), trying > to write a simple Forth in assembler (as a pet asm project). > > Is the online version of the standard up-to-date? Here it is: http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf groet Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kosx8r3kem2e004@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57437 |
Coos Haak wrote: > Op Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:10:10 +0000 (UTC) schreef Rudy Velthuis: > > > rickman wrote: > > > >>> > Something seems to be wrong. I don't find section 11.6.2.2266 > in >>> > the document. > >>> > >>> https://forth-standard.org/standard/file/Seq > >>> > >>> These interpretation semantics seem to be an extension for the > >>> File-Access wordset, probably to be able to define certain file > >>> names (e.g. with quotes in or around them). > >> > >> I was working from a year too old copy of the standard. I've got > the >> more recent now. > > > > I don't have any. > > > > I'm more or less a newb (in Forth, although I already wrote some > > code in Acornsoft Forth in 1983 -- I am not a newb in programming), > > trying to write a simple Forth in assembler (as a pet asm project). > > > > Is the online version of the standard up-to-date? > > Here it is: > http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf > > groet Coos Ah, thanks! Lots of Dutch people here, I see. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "UNIX is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity." -- Dennis Ritchie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 16:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr16.181132@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #57415 |
"Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> writes:
>Is the online version of the standard up-to-date?
Forth-2012:
PDF version: http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf
Web 2.0 version: http://forth-standard.org/standard/words
If you are interested in the drafts of the next standard, look at
<http://www.forth200x.org/documents/>.
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-16 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kotn4d427bnn001@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57451 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> writes: > > Is the online version of the standard up-to-date? > > Forth-2012: > > PDF version: http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf > Web 2.0 version: http://forth-standard.org/standard/words > > If you are interested in the drafts of the next standard, look at > <http://www.forth200x.org/documents/>. Thanks. I am trying to make my hobby Forth (RudyForth ;-) as compliant as I can. Having such data is very useful. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep." -- Native Proverb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 07:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <od1olr$p3j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57462 |
On 16/04/2017 23:18, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > Anton Ertl wrote: > >> "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> writes: >>> Is the online version of the standard up-to-date? >> >> Forth-2012: >> >> PDF version: http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf >> Web 2.0 version: http://forth-standard.org/standard/words >> >> If you are interested in the drafts of the next standard, look at >> <http://www.forth200x.org/documents/>. > > Thanks. I am trying to make my hobby Forth (RudyForth ;-) as compliant > as I can. Having such data is very useful. > In case you are not aware of it, this test suite could assist making your system compliant. https://github.com/gerryjackson/forth2012-test-suite -- Gerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kov3mc5aibqj004@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57478 |
Gerry Jackson wrote: > On 16/04/2017 23:18, Rudy Velthuis wrote: > > Anton Ertl wrote: > > > >>"Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> writes: > > > > Is the online version of the standard up-to-date? > > > > > > Forth-2012: > > > > > > PDF version: http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf > > > Web 2.0 version: http://forth-standard.org/standard/words > > > > > > If you are interested in the drafts of the next standard, look at > > > <http://www.forth200x.org/documents/>. > > > > Thanks. I am trying to make my hobby Forth (RudyForth ;-) as > > compliant as I can. Having such data is very useful. > > > In case you are not aware of it, this test suite could assist making > your system compliant. > > https://github.com/gerryjackson/forth2012-test-suite I already downloaded that a while ago. But I can't use it yet. My Forth is not finished yet, and it can't include or require or evaluate yet. <g> -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "Opportunities multiply as they are seized." -- Sun Tzu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0kov3mu5aj0h1005@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57478 |
Gerry Jackson wrote: > In case you are not aware of it, this test suite could assist making > your system compliant. > > https://github.com/gerryjackson/forth2012-test-suite Thanks, BTW, I forgot that in my previous post. -- Rudy Velthuis http://www.rvelthuis.de "She was already learning that if you ignore the rules people will, half the time, quietly rewrite them so that they don't apply to you." -- Terry Pratchett (Equal Rites)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web