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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #29986 > unrolled thread

Umm...help?

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

Contents

  Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 18:46 -0700
    Re: Umm...help? Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 19:32 -0700
      Re: Umm...help? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-04-30 10:21 +0000
        Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-01 15:39 -0700
          Re: Umm...help? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-02 10:13 +0200
          Re: Umm...help? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-02 02:06 -0700
            Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 16:04 -0700
            Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 16:10 -0700
              Re: Umm...help? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 14:18 -0400
                Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-19 14:20 -0700
    Re: Umm...help? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-29 16:51 -1000
      Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 20:03 -0700
        Re: Umm...help? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-04-29 17:41 -1000
          Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-01 15:29 -0700
    Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-04-29 19:51 -0700
    Re: Umm...help? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-04-30 08:49 +0000
      Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-01 15:32 -0700
        Re: Umm...help? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-02 09:03 +0000
        Re: Umm...help? Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo@home.no> - 2014-05-02 13:33 +0200
          Re: Umm...help? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 15:11 -0400
            Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 16:15 -0700
          Re: Umm...help? David J <skamolex@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 16:11 -0700
    Re: Umm...help? David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2014-05-04 20:35 +0100
      Re: Umm...help? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-04 12:47 -1000
        Re: Umm...help? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-05 01:59 +0200
          Re: Umm...help? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-04 15:05 -1000
            Re: Umm...help? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-05 13:06 +0200
              Re: Umm...help? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-05 08:07 -1000
                SEE (was: Umm...help?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-06 16:30 +0000
                  Re: SEE "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-06 09:24 -1000
                    Re: SEE Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-06 21:53 +0200
                      no more ASS cracks? (was Re: SEE) all2001@spambog.com (Wolfgang Allinger) - 2014-05-06 19:48 -0400
                    Re: SEE anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 17:11 +0000
              Re: Umm...help? Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-05-10 15:47 +0100
                Re: Umm...help? Assad Ebrahim <assad.ebrahim@alum.swarthmore.edu> - 2014-05-10 16:06 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#29986 — Umm...help?

I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the current definitions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless FORTH implementations.  I'm using something that purports to be FIG_FORTHish.

(I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The alternative seems almost intractable.)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#29987

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:46:19 PM UTC-5, David J wrote:
> I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the current definitions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless FORTH implementations.  I'm using something that purports to be FIG_FORTHish.
> 
> (I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The alternative seems almost intractable.)

I generally look in the text file that the words are defined in.  If
you're using blocks, you can look in those similarly.  You may have a
LOCATE that displays the source code of a given word for you. If
you're interested in the source of a word just defined, you may be
able to navigate your input history with the arrow keys, or find the
history file. If you're interested in the names of words that you've
defined recently, you can generally find those at the top of WORDS .
You may be able to SEE or otherwise DISassemble a word, to recover
its source.

If you're trying to figure out an installed Forth system, and have
only a prompt, it probably has source (and documentation) in blocks.
Type EDITOR and then WORDS .

-- Julian

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

#30003

In article <0814580b-ff9f-4907-89a4-85f32ee6f6c3@googlegroups.com>,
Julian Fondren  <ayrnieu@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:46:19 PM UTC-5, David J wrote:
>> I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One
>question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the
>current definitions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless
>FORTH implementations.  I'm using something that purports to be
>FIG_FORTHish.
>>
>> (I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The
>alternative seems almost intractable.)
>
>I generally look in the text file that the words are defined in.  If
>you're using blocks, you can look in those similarly.  You may have a
>LOCATE that displays the source code of a given word for you. If
>you're interested in the source of a word just defined, you may be
>able to navigate your input history with the arrow keys, or find the
>history file. If you're interested in the names of words that you've
>defined recently, you can generally find those at the top of WORDS .

Or at the bottom, such that you don't have to scroll up. That's becoming
the fashion over here in the Netherlands.

>You may be able to SEE or otherwise DISassemble a word, to recover
>its source.
>
>If you're trying to figure out an installed Forth system, and have
>only a prompt, it probably has source (and documentation) in blocks.
>Type EDITOR and then WORDS .
>
>-- Julian
-- 
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]

#30051

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:21:20 AM UTC-6, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <0814580b-ff9f-4907-89a4-85f32ee6f6c3@googlegroups.com>,
> 
> Julian Fondren  <ayr@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:46:19 PM UTC-5, David J wrote:
> 
> >> I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One
> 
> >question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the
> 
> >current definitions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless
> 
> >FORTH implementations.  I'm using something that purports to be
> 
> >FIG_FORTHish.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> (I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The
> 
> >alternative seems almost intractable.)
> 
> >
> 
> >I generally look in the text file that the words are defined in.  If
> 
> >you're using blocks, you can look in those similarly.  You may have a
> 
> >LOCATE that displays the source code of a given word for you. If
> 
> >you're interested in the source of a word just defined, you may be
> 
> >able to navigate your input history with the arrow keys, or find the
> 
> >history file. If you're interested in the names of words that you've
> 
> >defined recently, you can generally find those at the top of WORDS .
> 
> 
> 
> Or at the bottom, such that you don't have to scroll up. That's becoming
> 
> the fashion over here in the Netherlands.
> 
> 
> 
> >You may be able to SEE or otherwise DISassemble a word, to recover
> 
> >its source.
> 
> >
> 
> >If you're trying to figure out an installed Forth system, and have
> 
> >only a prompt, it probably has source (and documentation) in blocks.
> 
> >Type EDITOR and then WORDS .
> 
> >
> 
> >-- Julian
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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

Well, I tried SEE, DIS, LOCATE, LOC, EDITOR, etc.  Clearly this is a very lean implementation.  But since Elizabeth's mention, I've using a text editor to keep a record of everything.  This has worked well.  What I did the first day is forever gone to the Land of Lost Bits.  But it was just Day One stuff.  Lesson learned. :)

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

#30056

Op Thu, 1 May 2014 15:39:47 -0700 (PDT) schreef David J:

> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:21:20 AM UTC-6, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> In article <0814580b-ff9f-4907-89a4-85f32ee6f6c3@googlegroups.com>,
>> 
>> Julian Fondren  <ayr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:46:19 PM UTC-5, David J wrote:
>> 
>>>> I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One
>> 
>>>question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the
>> 
>>>current definitions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless
>> 
>>>FORTH implementations.  I'm using something that purports to be
>> 
>>>FIG_FORTHish.
>> 
>>>>
>> 
>>>> (I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The
>> 
>>>alternative seems almost intractable.)
>> 
>>>
>> 
>>>I generally look in the text file that the words are defined in.  If
>> 
>>>you're using blocks, you can look in those similarly.  You may have a
>> 
>>>LOCATE that displays the source code of a given word for you. If
>> 
>>>you're interested in the source of a word just defined, you may be
>> 
>>>able to navigate your input history with the arrow keys, or find the
>> 
>>>history file. If you're interested in the names of words that you've
>> 
>>>defined recently, you can generally find those at the top of WORDS .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Or at the bottom, such that you don't have to scroll up. That's becoming
>> 
>> the fashion over here in the Netherlands.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>You may be able to SEE or otherwise DISassemble a word, to recover
>> 
>>>its source.
>> 
>>>
>> 
>>>If you're trying to figure out an installed Forth system, and have
>> 
>>>only a prompt, it probably has source (and documentation) in blocks.
>> 
>>>Type EDITOR and then WORDS .
>> 
>>>
>> 
>>>-- Julian
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> Well, I tried SEE, DIS, LOCATE, LOC, EDITOR, etc.  Clearly this is a very lean implementation.  But since Elizabeth's mention, I've using a text editor to keep a record of everything.  This has worked well.  What I did the first day is forever gone to the Land of Lost Bits.  But it was just Day One stuff.  Lesson learned. :)

Very long ago, WORDS was called VLIST

-- 
Coos

CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications
http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html 

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

#30058

You'll probably find it less stressful to use a modern Forth system. On the PC, I use VFX. It produces very fast code; however, I'm biased: being British I tend to lean towards a British vendor. Swift Forth is also very good.

Is the reason for you using an old Forth system due to you using an old hardware platform? We've assumed you're running Forth on a modern PC. Perhaps you're running on an old VAX, or a CP/M machine or something? If so, I get it. I do a lot of Forth on 33 year old Texas Instruments TI-99/4A. That's just how I roll ;-)

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

#30204

On Friday, May 2, 2014 3:06:36 AM UTC-6, Mark Wills wrote:
> Is the reason for you using an old Forth system due to you using an old hardware platform? We've assumed you're running Forth on a modern PC. Perhaps you're running on an old VAX, or a CP/M machine or something? If so, I get it. I do a lot of Forth on 33 year old Texas Instruments TI-99/4A. That's just how I roll ;-)

It is a specific hardware platform.  A relatively new one.  AFAIK, it has only one FORTH written for it - and I feel lucky for that. :)  So I'm mostly stuck.  But it's not so bad.  In the last week I've learned infinitely more than I knew on Day One.  (In fact that's why I'm so slow to respond - I'm spending every spare minute writing and testing FORTH.)  Things are going great, now.  I just continue to do what Elizabeth suggested...to write and maintain source listings in text files.  Haven't lost a thing since.

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

#30205

On Friday, May 2, 2014 3:06:36 AM UTC-6, Mark Wills wrote:
> You'll probably find it less stressful to use a modern Forth system. On the PC, I use VFX. It produces very fast code; however, I'm biased: being British I tend to lean towards a British vendor.

As you surmised, I have been using a different platform.  But the idea of a PC is appealing.  I have some old PCs that were dogs when burdened with Windows.  They'd probably fly with FORTH.  Plus, being old, there would be relatively little lost if I were to do something really stupid.  I'll definitely look into VFX.  Speed has a great appeal. :)

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

#30222

On 5/8/2014 7:10 PM, David J wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 3:06:36 AM UTC-6, Mark Wills wrote:
>> You'll probably find it less stressful to use a modern Forth system. On the PC, I use VFX. It produces very fast code; however, I'm biased: being British I tend to lean towards a British vendor.
>
> As you surmised, I have been using a different platform.  But the idea of a PC is appealing.  I have some old PCs that were dogs when burdened with Windows.  They'd probably fly with FORTH.  Plus, being old, there would be relatively little lost if I were to do something really stupid.  I'll definitely look into VFX.  Speed has a great appeal. :)

Yes, Forth runs pretty quickly on PCs even under an OS.  What platform 
are you using now?  Is this something other than a PC?  Other than a 
commercial non-PC computer like an Atari or Apple 2e?  Inquiring minds 
want to know!

-- 

Rick

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

#30463

> What platform 
> 
> are you using now?  Is this something other than a PC?  Other than a 
> 
> commercial non-PC computer like an Atari or Apple 2e?  Inquiring minds 
> 
> want to know!
> 
> Rick

Rick, it's an ARM Cortex M0 from NXP - the LPC1114.  From my experiences so far, I think that resident Forth and embedded ARM microcontrollers are an outstanding combo.  Forth has been a joy from the start - even the first day when I didn't know enough to save my code in a text editor. :)

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

#29988

On 4/29/14 3:46 PM, David J wrote:
> I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!)
> One question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I
> review the current definitions of words I've created?  I realize
> there are endless FORTH implementations.  I'm using something
> that purports to be FIG_FORTHish.
>
> (I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.
> The alternative seems almost intractable.)

Did you use the editor and edit them into blocks or a file? If so, just 
look at it! If you just typed your definitions in directly, it's a 
little harder. You can probably use WORDS to see the names of words 
available (including the system words as well as yours). You might be 
able to use SEE <name> to see the content of compiled words.

The way development works best is to use your command line to explore 
and try things, and then enter the words you want to keep using an 
editor. If your system is "FIG_FORTHish" that might be in blocks with an 
editor included with the system.

If you're just learning, I'd recommend getting a Forth with better 
documentation and user interface!

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#29990

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:51:42 PM UTC-6, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 4/29/14 3:46 PM, David J wrote:
> 
> > I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!)
> 
> > One question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I
> 
> > review the current definitions of words I've created?  I realize
> 
> > there are endless FORTH implementations.  I'm using something
> 
> > that purports to be FIG_FORTHish.
> 
> >
> 
> > (I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.
> 
> > The alternative seems almost intractable.)
> 
> 
> 
> Did you use the editor and edit them into blocks or a file? If so, just 
> 
> look at it! If you just typed your definitions in directly, it's a 
> 
> little harder. You can probably use WORDS to see the names of words 
> 
> available (including the system words as well as yours). You might be 
> 
> able to use SEE <name> to see the content of compiled words.
> 
> 
> 
> The way development works best is to use your command line to explore 
> 
> and try things, and then enter the words you want to keep using an 
> 
> editor. If your system is "FIG_FORTHish" that might be in blocks with an 
> 
> editor included with the system.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're just learning, I'd recommend getting a Forth with better 
> 
> documentation and user interface!
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ==================================================
> 
> Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
> 
> FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
> 
> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
> 
> Los Angeles, CA 90045
> 
> http://www.forth.com
> 
> 
> 
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> 
> applications since 1973."
> 
> ==================================================

Thank you, Elizabeth.  The mode of operation you outline looks to be exactly what I'll need to adopt if I persist with this FORTH implementation.  Better documentation and user interface would seem to be in order right now because I am truly a neophyte to FORTH...but not to computers.  I've been counting in hexadecimal for a quarter of a century. :)

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

#29991

On 4/29/14 5:03 PM, David J wrote:
> Thank you, Elizabeth.  The mode of operation you outline looks to be exactly what I'll need to adopt if I persist with this FORTH implementation.  Better documentation and user interface would seem to be in order right now because I am truly a neophyte to FORTH...but not to computers.  I've been counting in hexadecimal for a quarter of a century. :)

There are good, well-documented Forths available with much better user 
interfaces and much more modern implementation strategies.

Do you have access to Starting Forth? I don't usually recommend it to 
newbies because it represents Forth as it was in the 80's, and it's come 
a long way since then (like all other technology), but if you're going 
to use a "FIG_FORTHish" system it would be helpful. There's an online 
copy (with a few modernizations) here: 
http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/index.html.

You might also want to download FORTH, Inc.'s free evaluation version of 
SwiftForth for Windows, Mac, or Linux. It is contemporary and 
well-documented (a system manual and several other books in pdf form). 
You might also benefit from my book, Forth Application Techniques which 
is a thorough tutorial available from Amazon. It is aimed at 
contemporary Forths, however.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#30048

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:41:57 PM UTC-6, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 4/29/14 5:03 PM, David J wrote:
> 
> > Thank you, Elizabeth.  The mode of operation you outline looks to be exactly what I'll need to adopt if I persist with this FORTH implementation.  Better documentation and user interface would seem to be in order right now because I am truly a neophyte to FORTH...but not to computers.  I've been counting in hexadecimal for a quarter of a century. :)
> 
> 
> 
> There are good, well-documented Forths available with much better user 
> 
> interfaces and much more modern implementation strategies.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have access to Starting Forth? I don't usually recommend it to 
> 
> newbies because it represents Forth as it was in the 80's, and it's come 
> 
> a long way since then (like all other technology), but if you're going 
> 
> to use a "FIG_FORTHish" system it would be helpful. There's an online 
> 
> copy (with a few modernizations) here: 
> 
> http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/index.html.
> 
> 
> 
> You might also want to download FORTH, Inc.'s free evaluation version of 
> 
> SwiftForth for Windows, Mac, or Linux. It is contemporary and 
> 
> well-documented (a system manual and several other books in pdf form). 
> 
> You might also benefit from my book, Forth Application Techniques which 
> 
> is a thorough tutorial available from Amazon. It is aimed at 
> 
> contemporary Forths, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Elizabeth
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ==================================================
> 
> Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
> 
> FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
> 
> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
> 
> Los Angeles, CA 90045
> 
> http://www.forth.com
> 
> 
> 
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> 
> applications since 1973."
> 
> ==================================================

Thanks for these references.  At the time I read your initial post, I didn't realize it was 'the' Elizabeth!  Pretty august crowd, here. :)

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

#29989

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 7:46:19 PM UTC-6, David J wrote:
> I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One question I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the current definitions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless FORTH implementations.  I'm using something that purports to be FIG_FORTHish.
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The alternative seems almost intractable.)

Thank you, Julian.

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

#29998

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:46:19 -0700 (PDT), David J <skamolex@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One questio=
>n I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the current defin=
>itions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless FORTH implementa=
>tions.  I'm using something that purports to be FIG_FORTHish.
>
>(I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The alternati=
>ve seems almost intractable.)

You are probably looking for
  LOCATE <name>
to view the source code of a word in an editor.

The Forths with good documentation are the commercial ones from MPE
(that's us) and Forth Inc. You can download a free-of-charge
evaluation version.

The MPE web site also has a books page with several free downloads,
including for my book, Programming Forth.

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]

#30050

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:49:06 AM UTC-6, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:46:19 -0700 (PDT), David J
> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >I'm the most recent person in the world to learn FORTH.  (Yay!) One questio=
> 
> >n I have not found an answer to is this:  How do I review the current defin=
> 
> >itions of words I've created?  I realize there are endless FORTH implementa=
> 
> >tions.  I'm using something that purports to be FIG_FORTHish.
> 
> >
> 
> >(I'm just presuming there IS some way to review definitions.  The alternati=
> 
> >ve seems almost intractable.)
> 
> 
> 
> You are probably looking for
> 
>   LOCATE <name>
> 
> to view the source code of a word in an editor.
> 
> 
> 
> The Forths with good documentation are the commercial ones from MPE
> 
> (that's us) and Forth Inc. You can download a free-of-charge
> 
> evaluation version.
> 
> 
> 
> The MPE web site also has a books page with several free downloads,
> 
> including for my book, Programming Forth.
> 
> 
> 
> 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

The FORTH I'm using is so spartan that it doesn't recognize LOCATE.  But if it did, this would surely be the word I'm searching for.

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

#30057

On Thu, 1 May 2014 15:32:01 -0700 (PDT), David J <skamolex@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The FORTH I'm using is so spartan that it doesn't recognize LOCATE.
>But if it did, this would surely be the word I'm searching for.

Time to find something else, or to move to a bigger platform?

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]

#30059

On 05/02/2014 00:32, David J wrote:
>
> The FORTH I'm using is so spartan that it doesn't recognize LOCATE.  But if it did, this would surely be the word I'm searching for.
>
Another hint: if you are a nice person, you trim your quotes. Don't 
quote everything, just the parts that are relevant.
Oh, and if the tool you are using to read and write these newsgroups 
makes it "hard" for you to do so - find another tool.
HTH
-- 
Torfinn Ingolfsen,
Norway

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

#30088

On 5/2/2014 7:33 AM, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> On 05/02/2014 00:32, David J wrote:
>>
>> The FORTH I'm using is so spartan that it doesn't recognize LOCATE.
>> But if it did, this would surely be the word I'm searching for.
>>
> Another hint: if you are a nice person, you trim your quotes. Don't
> quote everything, just the parts that are relevant.
> Oh, and if the tool you are using to read and write these newsgroups
> makes it "hard" for you to do so - find another tool.
> HTH

This looks like as good a place as any to jump in.  For an alternate 
Forth, I would recommend Win32Forth.  It has a good support group at

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/win32forth/info

You can download it at Sourceforge

http://sourceforge.net/projects/win32forth/files/?source=navbar

Most of us are using the developer release as it is quite stable.  6.15.03

There is an interesting add on called Visual Forth which I am looking at 
now for providing a Windows oriented interface.

http://www.visualforth.org/

https://de.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/visualFORTH/info

You can get help here, but better at the Yahoo groups.


Now, for your newsgroup access, Goober Groups has gone to the dark side 
long ago.  I gave up on it in favor of Thunderbird.  I recommend it for 
newsgroup access.  You can get a free account at eternal-september.org

http://www.eternal-september.org/

It is a little more work setting it up, but well worth it.  :)

-- 

Rick

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web