Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28006 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-01-22 13:52 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-26 01:59 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 412 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 13:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-22 21:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 14:10 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-22 14:11 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-23 00:14 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-22 14:28 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-23 20:22 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-23 12:34 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-25 22:44 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-25 08:49 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-25 19:40 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-26 23:01 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 03:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 10:10 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 11:35 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-01-23 13:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 05:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-23 15:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 01:51 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:00 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 14:23 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 05:41 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-26 00:49 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 03:01 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 05:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 08:21 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? BF <foxaudioresearch@gmail.com> - 2014-01-23 06:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-23 16:00 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-23 20:21 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-23 20:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 04:33 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-10 23:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 10:49 +0200
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-24 03:26 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 04:25 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-27 22:09 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-28 22:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 03:22 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 06:52 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-23 16:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:14 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-23 17:42 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-23 10:42 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 15:01 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-23 17:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-23 12:16 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-24 09:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-24 07:16 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 05:43 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-24 10:57 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-25 03:58 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 17:24 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-27 19:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-28 03:34 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-24 14:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 17:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-24 21:00 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-25 20:47 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-10 23:36 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-24 00:44 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-24 09:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-23 10:02 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-23 09:05 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-27 00:43 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-26 18:04 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-26 11:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-26 22:09 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-26 15:35 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-29 01:57 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-28 13:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-28 12:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-30 17:19 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-01 00:40 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-31 06:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-31 12:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 08:36 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-01 00:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-31 15:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-03 16:18 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-01 03:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-02 13:10 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-02 16:06 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-02 10:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-02 18:39 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 14:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 18:49 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 09:35 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-02-03 09:56 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-03 02:50 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-03 03:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 14:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-03 19:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-04 12:23 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-03 19:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-04 08:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 19:07 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-30 15:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-31 02:34 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-31 02:38 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-30 15:51 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 14:58 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-03 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-09 15:04 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-09 10:56 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 15:58 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-10 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 11:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-11 05:23 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-12 10:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-10 18:12 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 05:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-10 15:44 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 10:40 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-10 17:47 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 16:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 11:09 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-10 17:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-10 12:14 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-10 22:38 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 03:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-11 10:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 18:24 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-12 15:02 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 11:23 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 09:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 04:54 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 13:41 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-13 14:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 08:41 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 15:29 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 12:07 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-15 16:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-15 13:22 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-17 12:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-17 14:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-17 09:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-17 19:06 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-17 12:52 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-17 22:51 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 04:36 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 09:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 05:01 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 14:19 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 08:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 17:14 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:20 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-19 17:10 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-19 23:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-20 09:55 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-21 20:15 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-22 12:08 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 14:45 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 02:29 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 21:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 22:33 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 22:13 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 17:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-24 14:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-26 12:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-26 20:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 04:54 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-27 12:56 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 06:30 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 05:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 15:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:13 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:23 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-28 11:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-28 16:20 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 01:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-28 23:36 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 12:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-03-01 13:59 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-01 13:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-03-01 07:53 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:12 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 11:01 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-27 08:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:23 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-27 19:53 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 07:48 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 16:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-27 08:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:45 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 20:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-01 08:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-03-01 16:53 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-03-01 15:06 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 17:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:51 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-04 03:20 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-04 19:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-05 03:51 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 10:11 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-05 14:09 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 11:20 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-01 15:43 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 22:16 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-02 04:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-02 14:07 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-03-03 00:59 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 08:20 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-03 03:03 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-06 18:09 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-06 17:26 -0600
WITHIN (was: CASE mis-understanding?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 12:51 +0000
Re: WITHIN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 12:13 -0800
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 05:07 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 15:43 +0000
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 08:23 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 16:37 +0000
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 10:18 -0800
Re: WITHIN mhx@iae.nl - 2014-03-08 10:48 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-08 16:02 +0000
Re: WITHIN Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-09 01:24 -0800
Re: WITHIN anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-09 18:16 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-06 21:46 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-07 09:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 12:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-07 19:36 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-06 18:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-06 23:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 10:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 08:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 09:36 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-03-02 20:16 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-27 08:18 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 13:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-07 08:26 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-27 10:37 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 11:31 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-07 13:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 11:17 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-03-09 20:49 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-27 16:22 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-28 15:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-28 18:32 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 03:39 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:19 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-27 13:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-24 01:25 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-24 03:36 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-24 02:04 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:15 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-02-22 21:09 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-22 21:55 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-02-23 00:47 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 01:45 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-20 17:07 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-20 16:03 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-21 04:11 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-21 10:59 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-21 03:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-21 10:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-21 05:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-22 13:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 09:13 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-22 10:45 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-21 20:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-22 15:24 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-22 10:37 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 03:20 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-11 16:15 -0400
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-12 00:10 -0700
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-22 13:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 08:56 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 01:27 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-23 04:33 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 08:11 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-23 21:44 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-23 22:48 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 02:23 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 16:05 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-02-24 18:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-02-24 19:18 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-26 12:40 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> - 2014-02-26 15:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-03-04 01:31 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 16:30 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-05 11:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-22 18:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gary Bergstrom <forthprgrmr@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 08:39 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-24 21:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 00:44 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 00:45 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-23 04:35 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 12:31 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:19 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 12:51 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 14:40 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 08:17 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 04:48 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 13:56 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-18 11:15 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:24 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 03:46 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-21 15:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-22 09:10 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 13:09 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-18 15:03 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 15:53 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-14 00:39 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-14 06:38 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-15 15:37 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-15 13:33 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-02-11 10:50 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-02-11 10:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-11 02:35 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 11:47 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-11 13:08 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-11 18:42 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-12 10:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 05:31 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-12 15:52 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-12 10:41 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 09:27 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-13 04:49 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-13 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-02-03 12:26 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-07 13:41 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-07 01:08 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:56 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-07 12:15 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-01 00:39 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-31 07:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-04 23:45 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-31 16:31 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-03 12:35 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-03 09:32 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:31 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-08 11:22 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-02-03 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 08:40 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-26 22:03 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? julian.fondren@gmail.com - 2014-01-29 17:19 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2014-01-30 11:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-27 13:57 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-28 14:01 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-28 14:49 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-29 10:07 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-28 21:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-01-29 00:33 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-29 03:37 -0600
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-01-30 21:51 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-31 18:44 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2014-02-09 00:34 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-09 22:14 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 01:25 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-01-31 17:44 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-31 16:03 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-01 01:55 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-01 11:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-01 08:11 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-02 14:28 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-02 18:28 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-07 13:34 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-07 03:52 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:41 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-07 18:33 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-08 00:31 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-08 11:21 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-02-08 15:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-08 19:58 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-09 08:33 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-09 19:50 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-10 08:42 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 16:32 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-02-14 02:36 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 23:04 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-13 23:40 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-14 04:37 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-14 09:42 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-15 16:52 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-16 07:46 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-16 08:11 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-16 16:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-02-17 09:03 +0100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-16 22:12 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-02-17 02:29 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-17 04:27 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-17 09:36 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-17 09:22 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-17 12:06 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-17 20:18 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-11 01:48 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-11 16:10 -0400
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-14 13:54 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-06 17:03 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-02-08 09:39 +1100
Re: CASE mis-understanding? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-07 20:12 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-02-09 21:33 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 02:38 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 16:17 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 08:54 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-24 09:25 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 20:34 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-24 11:13 -1000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-24 17:39 -0500
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-24 16:05 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-25 11:46 +0000
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-25 16:15 -0800
Re: CASE mis-understanding? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-26 01:59 +0100
Page 14 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 21 Next page →
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-21 03:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xd2igu2og.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28642 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> That well-definedness was considered a big win,
> Considered a big win by whom? Algol 60 lost out almost entirely to
> Fortran, perhaps in no small part due to Fortran generating much
> faster code.
Or maybe more to do with IBM's product offerings. Anyway I was
probably thinking of C.A.R. Hoare's 1980 Turing award lecture,
http://www.labouseur.com/projects/codeReckon/papers/The-Emperors-Old-Clothes.pdf
Quote (p.3 of pdf):
The first principle was security: The principle that every syntac-
tically incorrect program should be rejected by the compiler and
that every syntactically correct program should give a result or an
error message that was predictable and comprehensible in terms of
the source language program itself. Thus no core dumps should ever
be necessary. It was logically impossible for any source language
program to cause the computer to run wild, either at compile time or
at run time. A consequence of this principle is that every
occurrence of every subscript of every subscripted variable was on
every occasion checked at run time against both the upper and the
lower declared bounds of the array. Many years later we asked our
customers whether they wished us to provide an option to switch off
these checks in the interests of efficiency on production runs.
Unanimously, they urged us not to--they already knew how frequently
subscript errors occur on production runs where failure to detect
them could be disastrous. I note with fear and horror that even in
1980 language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In
any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such
elementary precautions would have long been against the law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-21 10:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <53072856.716237921@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #28631 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:03:13 -0800, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >The C users who drove standardization consciously >chose to pursue fast code at the expense of "supportiveness". In >retrospect, we can see that this has caused a huge mess, but a lot of >ego-oriented programmers in the 1990's thought they were too smart to >make the errors that their code is actually riddled with. We hear >similar things from Forthers in statements like "Forth is an amplifier". >Moving large-scale programming away from C is indeed a good response. >It may be less of a problem in Forth, since Forth programs are usually >not large, and Forth compilers are less aggressive. I have been enjoying this diatribe thread enourmously, and I suspect that other developers of optimising Forth compilers enjoy it too. In Forth culture, Forth is known to be dangerous - modify the return stack at your own risk. There is also some understanding that return stack manipulation is not that unusual. Hence the compiler writers are cautious. Large Forth programs tend to be well layered, e.g. by OOP layers. Large programs tend to be old. It takes a lot of time to write a million lines of code. Good large Forth applications change the notation. The application programmers use a language designed for their application domain. Application programmers then write very simple code using this language. It's the gurus writing the middle layers who are dangerous. We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would be more complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users of Forth tend to know how to contact the compiler writers. This is a good thing. 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-21 05:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <koGdndo8fYHBoJrOnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28643 |
Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: > > We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would be more > complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users of Forth tend to > know how to contact the compiler writers. This is a good thing. Eh? Contacting the writers of GCC is hard? How could it possibly be made any easier? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-22 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5308ab4b.815298337@news.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #28652 |
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 05:49:48 -0600, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: >> >> We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would be more >> complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users of Forth tend to >> know how to contact the compiler writers. This is a good thing. > >Eh? Contacting the writers of GCC is hard? How could it possibly be >made any easier? Dear nitpicker; that's not what I said. See Anton's later comment. 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 | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-22 09:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vMOdnbsrS4ApI5XOnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28680 |
Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 05:49:48 -0600, Andrew Haley > <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >>Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: >>> >>> We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would be more >>> complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users of Forth tend to >>> know how to contact the compiler writers. This is a good thing. >> >>Eh? Contacting the writers of GCC is hard? How could it possibly be >>made any easier? > > Dear nitpicker; that's not what I said. See Anton's later comment. WTF? That's a direct quote. Are you denying having said it? Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: > Unlike C (and especially gcc), users of Forth tend to know how to > contact the compiler writers. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-22 10:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.xbowqoni5zc71u@localhost> |
| In reply to | #28683 |
On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:13:56 -0500, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 05:49:48 -0600, Andrew Haley >> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>> Stephen Pelc <stephenXXX@mpeforth.com> wrote: >>>> We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would be more >>>> complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users of Forth tend to >>>> know how to contact the compiler writers. This is a good thing. >>> >>> Eh? Contacting the writers of GCC is hard? How could it possibly >>> be made any easier? >> >> Dear nitpicker; that's not what I said. See Anton's later comment. > > WTF? That's a direct quote. Are you denying having said it? > "hard to" .NE. "knowing how to"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-21 20:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e6ba8a96-aa36-4e3e-8c5f-71d5c5f6aa80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28643 |
On Friday, February 21, 2014 3:34:43 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: > In Forth culture, Forth is known to be dangerous - modify the > return stack at your own risk. There is also some understanding > that return stack manipulation is not that unusual. Hence the > compiler writers are cautious. In my language I will not have >R R> R@ etc. --- I will just provide local variables. The only thing that >R etc. can do, that locals can't do, is work with variable numbers of parameters on the data-stack (usually with a sentinel underneath them) --- but this is pretty rare, and the user can just use linked-lists instead anyway. My language is going to be a lot simpler than ANS-Forth. I can get rid of all return-stack stuff, including DO loops. I throw away a lot, and only add a few key features --- quotations are the major addition (and I mean quotations that have access to the creator function's local variables, not Bernd's fake quotations that are just syntactic sugar for :NONAME and are totally worthless). ANS-Forth is a weird combination of over-complexity and lack-of-features. My language will be a lot simpler, which will make the compiler-writer's life easier, and it will have useful features, which will make the application-programmer's life easier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-22 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5308c130$0$25275$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #28671 |
In article <e6ba8a96-aa36-4e3e-8c5f-71d5c5f6aa80@googlegroups.com>, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Friday, February 21, 2014 3:34:43 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >> In Forth culture, Forth is known to be dangerous - modify the >> return stack at your own risk. There is also some understanding >> that return stack manipulation is not that unusual. Hence the >> compiler writers are cautious. > >In my language I will not have >R R> R@ etc. --- I will just provide >local variables. > >The only thing that >R etc. can do, that locals can't do, is work with >variable numbers of parameters on the data-stack (usually with a >sentinel underneath them) --- but this is pretty rare, and the user can >just use linked-lists instead anyway. > >My language is going to be a lot simpler than ANS-Forth. I can get rid >of all return-stack stuff, including DO loops. I throw away a lot, and >only add a few key features --- quotations are the major addition (and I >mean quotations that have access to the creator function's local >variables, not Bernd's fake quotations that are just syntactic sugar for >:NONAME and are totally worthless). > >ANS-Forth is a weird combination of over-complexity and >lack-of-features. My language will be a lot simpler, which will make the >compiler-writer's life easier, and it will have useful features, which >will make the application-programmer's life easier. Even if you're language is totally fictional, it would be more educational to demonstrate how your language solves some simple problems by example. It has to beat yourforth with regard to simplicity. Get on with it already! [Note that yourforth is meant to be simple for a prospective compiler writer, not for a user, and I only replace ANSI features if it results in substantial simplification. ] 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 | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-22 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.xbowc9x65zc71u@localhost> |
| In reply to | #28671 |
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 23:18:12 -0500, <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 21, 2014 3:34:43 AM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote: >> In Forth culture, Forth is known to be dangerous - modify the >> return stack at your own risk. There is also some understanding >> that return stack manipulation is not that unusual. Hence the >> compiler writers are cautious. > > In my [Forth] language But, there's not a single reply from you in the "Forth reinvention" thread ... > In my language I will not have >R R> R@ etc. --- I will just provide > local variables. > > The only thing that >R etc. can do, that locals can't do, is work with > variable numbers of parameters on the data-stack (usually with a > sentinel underneath them) [...] > I think that implementing structured coding in Forth is a noble attempt. Unfortunately, as you should know, there are two ways that >R R> R@ are used in Forth. The first and most common is to temporarily store a single data item. I.e., you may need an extra user variable to allow storage of temporary data items. The other is to store and retrieve multiple data items. That usage is less common but may be harder to eliminate. But, maybe the Forth locals are sufficient for that, or they may just be more overhead. I would suspect that locals and at least one temporary would be more useful than just locals. > My language is going to be a lot simpler than ANS-Forth. I can get rid > of all return-stack stuff, including DO loops. You need at least one loop control-flow construct. If it's an infinite loop, you'll need a method to escape it, e.g., UNLOOP or EXIT etc. > I throw away a lot, and only add a few key features --- ... > [...] quotations are the major addition (and I mean quotations that have > access to the creator function's local variables, [...] Visionary -or- Worthless? ... > ANS-Forth is a weird combination of over-complexity and > lack-of-features. My language will be a lot simpler, which will make the > compiler-writer's life easier, and it will have useful features, which > will make the application-programmer's life easier. I'm curious. Do you compare your current pronouncements to prior pronouncements? Do you write these pronouncements down to compare your progress and results to them? Is expressing such ideas to us part of your mental process of visualization and realization? Or, are you attempting to build momentum from the group for your visions of Forth? Or, are you attempting to prepare us for a Forth you've already written when it is unleashed into the world and overcomes it? In many ways, your pronouncements like Gavino's random thought dumps ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-11 03:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lflvd5$1hg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28687 |
Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > [...] quotations are the major addition (and I mean quotations that have
> > access to the creator function's local variables, [...]
>
> Visionary -or- Worthless? ...
Perhaps you want them to be worthless so that you will
not have to experience the pain of learning a new paradigm.
You seem to be ignorant of closures. You need to learn about
the Lisp/Scheme (or ML) family of programming languages.
If you are not experienced in programming Scheme, Lisp, or ML, then
your horizons are very narrow.
Scheme (Racket):
(define (multiply-and-increment inc . lists)
(apply map
(lambda numbers (+ inc (apply * numbers)))
lists))
(multiply-and-increment 500 '(2 4 6 8) '(1 2 3 4) '(-8 5 7 9))
===>
'(484 540 626 788)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-11 16:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xckqkkwo6zenlw@localhost> |
| In reply to | #29006 |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:20:06 -0400, WJ <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> wrote: > Rod Pemberton wrote: >> Hugh Aquilar wrote: (cough) I corrected the attributions for you. I didn't have to correct your line lengths. ... >> > [...] quotations are the major addition (and I mean quotations >> > that have access to the creator function's local variables, [...] >> >> Visionary -or- Worthless? ... > > Perhaps you want them to be worthless so that you will > not have to experience the pain of learning a new paradigm. > Perhaps I think they're worthless because I've never had a need for them in the dozen or so languages I've experienced. I stated this to Hugh in one of the dozen other threads where he brought up closures. Hugh seems to think they will dramatically improve Forth and keeps attempting to build up Forth community momentum for them. The Forth programmers here seem to keep dismissing this idea of his, and I do too. However, I keep giving Hugh a chance to expound on his idea, but he never accepts the opportunity. > You seem to be ignorant of closures. You need to learn about > the Lisp/Scheme (or ML) family of programming languages. ... > If you are not experienced in programming Scheme, Lisp, or ML, > then your horizons are very narrow. Non-sequitur. I.e., if a theoretical someone, not me, experienced a thousand programming languages, none of which were Scheme, Lisp, or ML like, and none of which had closures, you'd still say that the huge "horizon" (breadth of experience) of that person was very narrow, although that would be incorrect. > Scheme (Racket): > > > (define (multiply-and-increment inc . lists) > (apply map > (lambda numbers (+ inc (apply * numbers))) > lists)) > > (multiply-and-increment 500 '(2 4 6 8) '(1 2 3 4) '(-8 5 7 9)) > ===> > '(484 540 626 788) Um, just what does one make of that crap? ... Since it's apparent that I'm "ignorant of closures," one could assume that I can't recognize a closure when I see it. Yet, even knowing that I'm "ignorant of closures" and therefore likely can't even recognize them, you failed or chose to not explain to me where the closure is in that mess ... Didn't you just criticize Forth as being non-readable in a another thread? Yes, you did. Was that ironic? I simply don't see anything I'd recognize or guess was a closure. Of course, I have little to no familiarity with Lisp or Scheme or ML. I do see something that appears to me to call multiply-and-increment multiple times with different parameters, or somesuch something. You also didn't demonstrate why a closure is needed. If the code can be written without closures, then they're simply not needed. That's the case with most high-level languages. So, for someone arguing *for* closures, like Hugh, I truly find this lack of explanation as to the worth of closures to be unbelievable! What am I supposed to see here? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-12 00:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x7g7zsxi8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #29014 |
"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> writes: > Since it's apparent that I'm "ignorant of closures," one could > assume that I can't recognize a closure when I see it. C++ has them now: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7627098/what-is-a-lambda-expression-in-c11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-22 13:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Feb22.142818@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #28643 |
stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would
>be more complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users
>of Forth tend to know how to contact the compiler writers.
>This is a good thing.
I also know how to contact the gcc maintainers. Unfortunately that
does not help.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-22 08:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <pu2dncW16eQrJ5XOnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28678 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: >>We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would >>be more complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users >>of Forth tend to know how to contact the compiler writers. >>This is a good thing. > > I also know how to contact the gcc maintainers. Unfortunately that > does not help. It helps just fine; the fact that you do not listen is your problem, not the inability to contact the maintainers. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 01:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lebf95$56s$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #28681 |
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes:
>>>We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would
>>>be more complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users
>>>of Forth tend to know how to contact the compiler writers.
>>>This is a good thing.
>>
>> I also know how to contact the gcc maintainers. Unfortunately that
>> does not help.
>
> It helps just fine; the fact that you do not listen is your problem,
> not the inability to contact the maintainers.
No, you get it wrong. *You* don't listen, you just tell people that they
are wrong, based on your screwed language lawyer logic. For example, we try
tell you that there is a difference between undefined behavior and
(implementation-)defined behavior. A compiler *can* optimize away dead code
when this dead code comes from defined behavior. if(0) { bla } is fine to
remove, because if(0) is well-defined. Actually, it must warn, because dead
code is a bug, just like unused variables are bugs.
What does happen to an undefined expression by the language is up to you,
the compiler implementer. We have an ample of "an ambiguous condition
exists when bla" in ANS Forth. The sensible thing to do for a quality
compiler is to either throw an exception which tells the programmer what
error condition happened, *or* to extend the behavior of the standard in a
sensible way. And if you do that, you gonna stick to that. The completely
unreasonable way to deal with it is to let it rain frogs or shout "off with
your head" (red queen attitude; the "you deserve my bad temper"-attitude).
I understand that you have bad temper, I would go mad in a week if I had to
maintain GCC ;-).
For 20 years, GCC defined what happened to integer overflow: it wraps
around. The C standard does not define it. But for the sake of backwards
compatibility and compatibility between different compilers, you need to
stick to that. This is not a decision you can make without user feedback,
and you get the negative user feedback, but choose to ignore it. Listen?
What's "listen"?
The NULL dereferencing is somewhat similar. The compiler generates code for
that stuff, and it doesn't know what memory mapping there is. Therefore, it
can't know whether the NULL dereferencing is actually casing a segv
exception. Therefore, optimizing the check on NULL away is not possible,
because the compiler can't prove that this code is really unreachable. The
rule of thumb is: if you can't prove that your optimization isn't changing
behavior, don't do it.
The thing is: You get the "undefined" semantics from the C standard wrong,
and you refuse to listen. And that's apparently the entire GCC team. You
don't listen to the Linux people who got screwed by you, you listen to
nobody. How does it help that you can be reached? You don't listen.
Stephen Pelc does listen to us, he might be grumpy first about what we tell
him, and it needs time to convince him, but he does listen. And in the end,
when he does fix severe problems, he finds that the solution is more
elegant, faster, and easier to maintain. Feedback is a two-way street, it
makes both sides happy.
How can we tell you that you are misguided if you constantly errect straw
men like "ask Anton"? The guidelines I gave you how to set the semantics
are obvious: You transform C statements into machine language. That one
does have a semantics defined by the machine. And this is the semantics
your program actually has when executed. There, a comparison between x and
x+1 is *not* undefined when an overflow happens. An access to a null
pointer is defined, if the zero page is mapped.
And stop being silly with what a compiler can do on undefined language
behavior. Ask yourself what a *good*, high quality, supportive compiler
would do, a compiler you would trust to compile a billion lines of code
(which GCC does to compile a Linux distribution); or what your compiler did
last year (backwards compatibility is a must). If you can't figure out what
a good compiler is, *listen* to the users. So maybe you are all so clueless
that "ask Anton" is the only way you have, because you can't figure out
yourself what to do. Then go ahead, and ask Anton. Or get a clue. If the
latter is not possible, the further always is. As Stephen found out,
compiling guru code is the hardest test to a compiler, so take Gforth as
regression test.
Telling the user that he deservers to be screwed by an adversarial compiler
is at least Asperger, if not sadistic. The reputation of GCC as adversarial
compiler has already spread way beyond me and Anton. It's starting to rival
Ulrich Drepper as glibc maintainer, but that's (very fortunately!) a thing
of the past. You now, Ulrich Drepper has about exactly the same approach at
robustness and standard compliance as you do - if the fine print of the
standard allows you to break code, you are obliged to do so. Is this a
RedHat culture problem (Ulrich Drepper worked for RedHat for a long time)?
When Ulrich resigned from glibc maintenance, the lwn.net readers asked
"where do we now get our drama?", but apparently, GCC steps in to rescue!
I'm always happy with a fast compiler. However, what I get from GCC is
serious performance degradation over the previous version (usually due to
misguided optimization efforts like trying to do GCSE and flow control
merging beyond computed gotos) *and* more bugs "for the sake of speed".
Hey, you can't even keep the speed of the version before, so why do you
bother with more speed? And when you have GCC extensions that provide more
speed (like computed gotos or long longs twice as long as long to access
widening multiplication), you shouldn't treat them as second-class citizens,
just because they are not (yet) part of the C standard.
One point for projects like net2o is "can you trust the compiler", because
if audited source code is miscompiled, you lose. The current state of GCC
is that you definitely can't trust it to build Gforth; each minor version
update requires manual intervention to get it to run again - at least for
the -fast-ll-reg version. You can trust the Gforth compiler, because it is
sufficiently simple, but when you can't trust GCC, then the trust chain is
broken.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 04:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Uq2dnQOHa9XnU5TOnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #28697 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: >>>>We could make VFX more aggressive, but then there would >>>>be more complaints. Unlike C (and especially gcc), users >>>>of Forth tend to know how to contact the compiler writers. >>>>This is a good thing. >>> >>> I also know how to contact the gcc maintainers. Unfortunately that >>> does not help. >> >> It helps just fine; the fact that you do not listen is your problem, >> not the inability to contact the maintainers. > > No... You want a language similar to C but with most undefined behaviour replaced by either well-defined or system-defined behaviour. I say "most" because I think there must be exceptions to this rule, such as writing into a random address. I don't know the complete list of changes to the C standard, but I do know that the work would be extensive and involve a lot of effort. It would also involve a lot of negotiation. But you do not specify this language. Instead you post angry comments directed at people who do not implement this language of yours when they implement C. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x4n3pollu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28708 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > You want a language similar to C but with most undefined behaviour > replaced by either well-defined or system-defined behaviour. ... > But you do not specify this language. Here's an interesting proposal for integer arithmetic. It has been implemented in GCC and Clang and the overhead is not too bad. It handles overflow with something like trapv, but says that GCC's trapv still misses some cases, so it goes a little further. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=9019
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 21:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ledmjt$iee$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #28708 |
Andrew Haley wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: > You want a language similar to C but with most undefined behaviour > replaced by either well-defined or system-defined behaviour. Yes, please! Well, I actually don't want a language similar to C, but if it must be similar to C for popularity reasons, that's the way to go. > I say > "most" because I think there must be exceptions to this rule, such as > writing into a random address. I don't know the complete list of > changes to the C standard, but I do know that the work would be > extensive and involve a lot of effort. It would also involve a lot of > negotiation. > > But you do not specify this language. Instead you post angry comments > directed at people who do not implement this language of yours when > they implement C. 20 years ago I had that. It was called "GCC". We decided to use this language to implement Gforth after evaluating it and we found that it did meet our requirements. It no longer does. I'm not interested in "you are holding it wrong"-style answers. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-23 22:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xfvn9m2f6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #28718 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> You want a language similar to C but with most undefined behaviour >> replaced by either well-defined or system-defined behaviour. > Yes, please! Well, I actually don't want a language similar to C You might like Go (www.golang.org). It's about halfway between C and a scripting language in terms of "level", so not suited for tiny embedded stuff, but has nothing like the clunkiness of Java, and you can feel the bits in your fingers when you need to, like C. I've been doing some stuff with it so thought I'd mention it. It might be a nice alternative platform for net2o.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-04 02:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lf39v4$s7o$2@online.de> |
| In reply to | #28730 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>> You want a language similar to C but with most undefined behaviour >>> replaced by either well-defined or system-defined behaviour. >> Yes, please! Well, I actually don't want a language similar to C > > You might like Go (www.golang.org). It's about halfway between C and a > scripting language in terms of "level", so not suited for tiny embedded > stuff, but has nothing like the clunkiness of Java, and you can feel the > bits in your fingers when you need to, like C. I've been doing some > stuff with it so thought I'd mention it. It might be a nice alternative > platform for net2o. Actually, I'm quite happy with Forth. The problem is that it is difficult to ignore the world out there, and you have to interface with C a lot, and in Gforth, we made the decision to use GCC as portable assembler (this was 20 years ago...). Go has the interfacing problem in a much larger way than Gforth, because it actually doesn't interface to C libraries. There is cgo for mixed language projects, though. Considdering C-like languages, Go is certainly a significant improvement over C. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web