Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #52738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 159 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-20 00:53 +0000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 14:46 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-19 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 20:10 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 01:18 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 01:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 02:16 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-20 07:48 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 23:36 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:03 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 21:49 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 03:33 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 08:52 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-20 12:05 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 10:43 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 00:02 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 01:00 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 01:13 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-22 20:54 +0000
Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-27 13:32 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 18:52 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-28 15:00 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-27 18:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 20:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-29 15:22 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 00:42 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-28 22:20 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 17:18 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 23:15 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 07:08 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 21:51 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:09 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 09:43 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-11-30 17:36 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 14:31 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:02 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-01 08:58 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-05 21:28 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 07:41 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-06 18:13 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-05 21:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-08 10:09 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-07 15:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-08 04:22 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 17:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 01:47 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-09 04:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 06:49 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 10:15 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) josv@planet.nl - 2017-04-12 04:47 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-07 14:34 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 18:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 09:38 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-12-06 12:01 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-08 21:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-08 18:57 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 05:28 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 06:45 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-10 16:54 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 17:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-04-11 08:03 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-11 07:50 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-11 11:43 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:16 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 10:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:48 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 23:58 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 00:55 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:51 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:50 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-12 12:55 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:17 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 06:03 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:30 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 08:44 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:01 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:33 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:27 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:02 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 20:10 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:16 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-05 12:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 10:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 18:53 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 11:33 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 22:22 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:29 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 11:32 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 19:06 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:27 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:24 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-30 13:41 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-30 15:15 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-01 09:54 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-01 04:42 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:09 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 08:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 10:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:41 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 13:25 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:45 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 05:53 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:34 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 11:48 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-29 14:24 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 21:27 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 18:15 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-11-30 10:03 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 12:22 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-29 14:31 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-02 23:05 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-12-03 01:58 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-03 22:00 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-23 10:11 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 00:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-23 13:49 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:51 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-24 09:26 -1000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 12:28 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 16:54 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 02:20 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-25 10:39 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-22 04:17 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 10:38 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 13:05 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-29 15:23 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 07:46 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 21:59 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 08:12 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 22:22 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 21:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 01:06 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-25 11:56 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 23:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 18:11 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 18:58 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 14:08 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 04:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ockn2a$trd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57116 |
On 4/12/2017 3:55 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > Also, I don't think that I have "problems of cooperation" --- I have > repeatedly said that I want to cooperate with Forth programmers on > designing a Forth standard --- I don't declare myself by fiat to be > the "leading expert" of all Forth programmers and demand that all > Forth programmers accept that I am their "superior" (note that the > word "superior" was introduced into this discussion by you, not me). Lol, in the very sentence where you say you don't have a problem with cooperation you can't complete it without criticizing the person you are talking to. If you have no problem with cooperation, why were you not able to cooperate with the Forth standards body enough to avoid being kicked out of the discussions? Or do I have it wrong and you left of your own accord, which still makes my point that you couldn't cooperate with them. > Our disagreement seems to be that I think a Forth standard needs to > be designed by Forth programmers, whereas you are in favor of a Forth > marketer. But according to you there aren't many Forth programmers. Where would you find the Forth programmers to form a Forth standards committee? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 13:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <bc2e14c9-34e2-4003-b325-289ca5d18158@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57118 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:07:33 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 4/12/2017 3:55 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Also, I don't think that I have "problems of cooperation" --- I have > > repeatedly said that I want to cooperate with Forth programmers on > > designing a Forth standard --- I don't declare myself by fiat to be > > the "leading expert" of all Forth programmers and demand that all > > Forth programmers accept that I am their "superior" (note that the > > word "superior" was introduced into this discussion by you, not me). > > Lol, in the very sentence where you say you don't have a problem with > cooperation you can't complete it without criticizing the person you are > talking to. > > If you have no problem with cooperation, why were you not able to > cooperate with the Forth standards body enough to avoid being kicked out > of the discussions? Or do I have it wrong and you left of your own > accord, which still makes my point that you couldn't cooperate with them. I said: "I want to cooperate with Forth programmers on designing a Forth standard." I did not say that I want to cooperate with an idiot marketing-genius who has spent her life braying about how she is the "leading expert" of the entire Forth community and claiming that Forth programmers such as myself are entirely dependent upon her for leadership. Her definition of the word "cooperate" is synonymous with my definition of "brown-nose." > > Our disagreement seems to be that I think a Forth standard needs to > > be designed by Forth programmers, whereas you are in favor of a Forth > > marketer. > > But according to you there aren't many Forth programmers. Where would > you find the Forth programmers to form a Forth standards committee? That is the problem! For cooperation to work, there has to be mutual respect --- people such as Elizabeth Rather and Stephen Pelc have zero respect for Forth programmers, but instead have fear and hatred for Forth programmers --- I have zero respect for marketing geniuses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 16:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ocm3rl$4bj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57169 |
On 4/12/2017 4:29 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:07:33 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 4/12/2017 3:55 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Also, I don't think that I have "problems of cooperation" --- I >>> have repeatedly said that I want to cooperate with Forth >>> programmers on designing a Forth standard --- I don't declare >>> myself by fiat to be the "leading expert" of all Forth >>> programmers and demand that all Forth programmers accept that I >>> am their "superior" (note that the word "superior" was introduced >>> into this discussion by you, not me). >> >> Lol, in the very sentence where you say you don't have a problem >> with cooperation you can't complete it without criticizing the >> person you are talking to. >> >> If you have no problem with cooperation, why were you not able to >> cooperate with the Forth standards body enough to avoid being >> kicked out of the discussions? Or do I have it wrong and you left >> of your own accord, which still makes my point that you couldn't >> cooperate with them. > > I said: "I want to cooperate with Forth programmers on designing a > Forth standard." > > I did not say that I want to cooperate with an idiot marketing-genius > who has spent her life braying about how she is the "leading expert" > of the entire Forth community and claiming that Forth programmers > such as myself are entirely dependent upon her for leadership. Her > definition of the word "cooperate" is synonymous with my definition > of "brown-nose." Ok, I think that is perfectly clear. You are completely unable to cooperate with anyone who it might be useful to work with to form a Forth standard. No only are you argumentative, but your paranoid delusions prevent you from even having a productive conversation. >>> Our disagreement seems to be that I think a Forth standard needs >>> to be designed by Forth programmers, whereas you are in favor of >>> a Forth marketer. >> >> But according to you there aren't many Forth programmers. Where >> would you find the Forth programmers to form a Forth standards >> committee? > > That is the problem! Actually, this completely eliminates the problem. If you are the only Forth programmer, everything you write is by definition Forth "standard" code! No need to even consider a formal document defining the language. By definition it is what you write. Nice, that is a very Forthish way to solve the problem. > For cooperation to work, there has to be mutual respect --- people > such as Elizabeth Rather and Stephen Pelc have zero respect for Forth > programmers, but instead have fear and hatred for Forth programmers > --- I have zero respect for marketing geniuses. You made a typo. You wrote "Forth programmers" when you should have written "Forth programmer", which would be only you, no? I think this conversation is at an end. You have your one true "Forth standard" and some others have theirs. Why do you need to worry with their work in order to do your own? Why not end your ranting and just do some work? Many years ago I worked for some guys who ran their own landscaping business, two brothers, a friend and myself working the summer. They bought a couple of old trucks and when you put down the sun visor in one written on the back side it said, "do some work". lol -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 03:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ab10f14c-758b-432a-a723-3aaffe9b6f84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57116 |
I've never done a professional work as a programmer and I don't think that I would have been able to do programming for living. A good professional programmer, I imagin, makes great code private but do what is asked for as a professional. Whithout whining and flashbacks. I can't even say I do great code in private and I would certainly not like to do what I was told. And I wouldn't care if someone called me a lousy programmer as long as I have fun and make progress. For what I have been seen, there is a whole world of programmers and computer scientists being better than me. You are totally uninteresting for me as long as the slender campange continues. If you could behave decent and focus on Forth there is a chance that you might succeed else not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 12:55 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <864lxtvqsd.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> |
| In reply to | #57141 |
lehs wrote: > A good professional programmer, I imagin, makes great code private but > do what is asked for as a professional. You make it sound like we're asked to do mediocre code at work. :-) Well, maybe it's not that far from the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 04:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <b9377fe5-abdb-4e5f-b86d-1a09350260cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57144 |
No I didn't mean that professionals where told to do second-rate code, but you might have to do that also from time to time, I guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 06:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <L9WdnZY2iIEMlHPFnZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #57141 |
lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> wrote: > I've never done a professional work as a programmer and I don't > think that I would have been able to do programming for living. A > good professional programmer, I imagin, makes great code private but > do what is asked for as a professional. Whithout whining and > flashbacks. That's really not what it's like! :-) Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 04:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <29a1fce9-0b8e-41a3-835a-673620c00ef1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57145 |
What is it like then? Like a dreamjob with a lot of stimulating assignments and with superiors serving coffee?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 08:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <XsydnY3qYoeisnPFnZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #57147 |
lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> wrote: > What is it like then? Like a dreamjob with a lot of stimulating > assignments and with superiors serving coffee? No. People are people: of course there are egos to deal with, and bickering and upsets, and most of the kinds of folly of which people are capable. But often there is real encouragement to try to find elegant solutions to problems, and everyone loves great code. There is plenty of mutual support and assistance. Just what you'd hope for, really, no surprises. With regard to stimulating assignments, if you're lucky you can people change companies until you find a company and job that you like. And nobody gets to make my coffee: I know what I'm doing! Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 13:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <oclmb3$i1h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57147 |
On 4/12/2017 7:30 AM, lehs wrote: > What is it like then? Like a dreamjob with a lot of stimulating assignments and with superiors serving coffee? Reminds me of a joke about a guy to dies and goes to Hell. He is being taken to his room where he will spend eternity and passes through some truly horrendous rooms with simply awful things being done to the souls there. Finally he is brought to a room where people are sitting in a lake of hot excrement sipping tea and coffee. This poor soul thinks, "Maybe this isn't so bad" when a whistle blows and the foreman yells, "Ok everyone, coffee break's over, heads down!" Every one of those poor, lost souls were Forth programmers. :( -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 13:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <561fa433-5bbd-45d5-acd2-8580f305b1b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57145 |
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 4:03:50 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've never done a professional work as a programmer and I don't > > think that I would have been able to do programming for living. A > > good professional programmer, I imagin, makes great code private but > > do what is asked for as a professional. Whithout whining and > > flashbacks. > > That's really not what it's like! :-) > > Andrew. Andrew Haley's background in Forth, that qualified him to be appointed by Elizabeth Rather to the Forth-200x committee, is that he taught the novice-class at Forth Inc. when Elizabeth Rather was unable to do so herself. Obviously, a programmer would not teach the novice-class --- only a salesman would be given such an assignment --- for Andrew Haley, this was a dream job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 12:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <381dfa8e-f742-4c82-b674-e4598cbdcdee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57047 |
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 8:41:14 AM UTC-7, Rob Sciuk wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > Elizabeth Rather and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009 that I could
> > never be a Forth programmer. Any "other words" that I may have had were
> > killed at that time, and forever after. They told me to go away. But I
> > didn't go away --- and I didn't begin brown-nosing them either, in the
> > hopes of being allowed to be a Forth programmer --- they created this
> > situation, not me.
>
> Rather than publicly venting your spleen, if you
> feel that you have been wronged, avenge yourself by doing interesting
> things and sharing them with the community.
Elizabeth Rather and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009 that I could never be a Forth programmer. Their expectation is that I would simply leave --- switch over to C like all of the other UR/Forth programmers did --- accept that I can't be a Forth programmer and stop writing Forth code.
But I continue to program in Forth, and I program in ANS-Forth when possible just to shine a spotlight on the stupidity of ANS-Forth. Every time I write ANS-Forth code I make the committee look stupid. Every time that anybody writes ANS-Forth code this helps to kill ANS-Forth.
My SYNONYM SYNONYM-FAST and ALIAS words are a good example. These require the disambiguifiers to work. I won't bother to show the disambiguifiers here now because they are easy to write, although they are intermediate-level ANS-Forth programming. My impression of you is that you are a novice-level Forth programmer and you need to be spoon-fed intermediate-level Forth code by somebody who is capable of writing such code. If this is the case, and you are incapable of writing disambiguifiers, then I will be happy to post the code here for your benefit. In the meantime, I will just post the SYNONYM SYNONYM-FAST and ALIAS words' code.
Here is where the subject was discussed:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 11:42:55 PM UTC-7, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:18:04 -0700 (PDT), hughaguilar96@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >This is not ANS-Forth code --- I don't want to RTFM because I don't want to
> > become an expert on VFX --- I'm already an expert on ANS-Forth.
>
> You asked a tech-support question about VFX. I answered it pointing
> out that your initial assumption (how IF works) was wrong.
>
> The code illustrates precisely why SYNONYM is defined the way it is
> defined - because it requires carnal knowledge. If you want to know
> how SYNONYM works:
> "So how do you write SYNONYM so that it can make a synonym of an
> immediate word?"
> then do not complain when you are told.
>
> Stephen
My assumption about IF was that it was immediate. This is sometimes right (SwiftForth) and sometimes wrong (VFX). The ambiguity of ANS-Forth, however, is meta-wrong --- ambiguity such as this is absurd --- ANS-Forth is a standard that doesn't standardize.
Being an ANS-Forth programmer is all about "can't" --- ANS-Forth expertise seems to consist primarily of telling people what they can't do, which is what Stephen Pelc is telling me --- Albert van der Horst also tells me that I can't write SYNONYM in ANS-Forth:
On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 4:56:31 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:48:32 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> > We already have been over this. You can't define SYNONYM in ISO Forth.
> > It requires carnal knowledge. So how would you call some one who still
> > tries?
>
> I would use the term "programmer" to describe such a person.
Here is my code:
\ ******
\ ****** Our SYNONYM SYNONYM-FAST and ALIAS words --- these depend upon having the disambiguifiers available.
\ ******
: :synonym { xt flg str wid -- } \ FLG is 1 for immediate and -1 for non-immediate
str wid :name
flg 1 = if xt lit, execute, ;, immediate exit then
flg -1 = if xt compile, ;, exit then
true abort" *** :SYNONYM given an invalid xt ***" ;
: :synonym-fast-check ( -- )
state @ 0= abort" *** a word created by :SYNONYM-FAST can't be used in interpretive mode ***" ;
: :synonym-fast { xt flg str wid -- } \ FLG is 1 for immediate and -1 for non-immediate
str wid :name
flg 1 = if xt lit, execute, ;, immediate exit then
flg -1 = if postpone :synonym-fast-check
xt lit, postpone compile, ;, immediate exit then
true abort" *** :SYNONYM-FAST given an invalid xt ***" ;
: 'find ( -- xt flg ) \ stream: name \ FLG is 1 for immediate and -1 for non-immediate
bl word find dup 0= abort" *** 'FIND couldn't find the word ***" ;
: synonym { wid | new -- } \ stream: new-name old-name \ the new word is compiled into the WID word-list
bl word hstr to new
'find new wid :synonym
new dealloc ;
: synonym-fast { wid | new -- } \ stream: new-name old-name \ the new word is compiled into the WID word-list
bl parse <hstr> to new
'find new wid :synonym-fast
new dealloc ;
\ :SYNONYM-FAST generates faster executing code than :SYNONYM but the words can't be used in interpretive mode.
\ This may not be necessary with a good optimizing compiler, but I'm not aware of any at this time.
1234512345 constant alias-id \ an arbitrary number used to identify alias'd definitions
0
w field alias.xt \ this should be the first field so the DOES> portion of ALIAS will be fast (no addition needed)
w field alias.adr \ the address of the body, used to identify alias'd definitions
w field alias.id \ the constant ALIAS-ID, used to identify alias'd definitions
constant alias-struct
: alias ( wid -- ) \ stream: new-name old-name \ the new word is compiled into the WID word-list
get-current swap set-current create set-current
here >r alias-struct allot
'find 1 = if immediate then r@ alias.xt !
r@ r@ alias.adr !
alias-id r@ alias.id !
rdrop
does>
alias.xt @ execute ;
\ ALIAS does the same thing as SYNONYM but has the advantage that >BODY will work on it.
\ It is slower executing though (especially under SwiftForth in which CREATE DOES> words are very inefficient).
: >body ( xt -- adr )
>body >r
r@ alias.adr @ r@ = if r@ alias.id @ alias-id = if \ is this an alias'd word?
r> alias.xt @ >body exit then then \ return the body of the original word
r> ; \ return the body of this word
\ Note that >BODY still has an undefined result if used on a word that wasn't defined with CREATE or isn't an alias of such a word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-12 17:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ocm4ke$7b6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57168 |
On 4/12/2017 3:59 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > Elizabeth Rather and Stephen Pelc both told me in 2009 that I could > never be a Forth programmer. Their expectation is that I would simply > leave This reminds me of an xkcd joke where a James Bond like figure is strapped to a table and is having a conversation with the Goldfinger like figure about centrifugal force vs. centripedal force. The Bond figure says, "Come now, do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge?" The Goldfinger figure responds, "No, Mister Bond. I expect you to die." -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 10:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ce191148-a482-4fb3-96ce-c4adaedfc2d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #57024 |
I think since you are posting your code regularly, nobody can surely claim you are not a forther. Your relations with Forth Inc. are understandable and your reaction is understandable too. I see many peoples here thinks you are too angry and shows too much agression, but there are two sides of problem - personal and objective. From the personal side, peoples may be abused by other peoples and keep this for a long time. From the objective side, it is important what was a reason for that abuse. Personal relations are important for peoples involved. Technical reason, from the oher side, creates a precedence. What about kicking Moore after he did his SeaForth CPU? An incidents of kicking anyone by personal or financial reasons looks stupid always and 10 times stupid in such rare community like Forth. Things are simple - when you have a lot of programmers, you may choose best one. If you have a very little peoples who are ready to contact you - keep them. (Indeed, we should always try to keep relations whenever possible). However, this is a game for many players. An official person should apply more effort for keeping a work atmosphere. Ignoring common trends looks not too wise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 14:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ocj5hq$22q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57024 |
On 4/10/2017 8:21 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > It is time to press the flush lever. Get rid of ANS-Forth. Start over > with a new standard. Kick Elizabeth Rather out of the Forth community > --- just as she and Stephen Pelc tried to kick me out of the Forth > community in 2009 --- there is no other way for Forth to succeed. We are waiting for you to show us the way. But you seem totally obsessed with writing ANS code and *NOT* starting over. Your disabiguafiers are a perfect example. No one in their right mind would have dug so deeply into the broken code of ANS compilers. A smart person would have recognized right away that it was a pointless effort and started fresh without using a trace of such a criminally broken approach. What is wrong with you Hugh? Why can't you take your own advice and get us the Forth we all need and deserve? Do it now! Lock yourself in a room with a computer and don't come out again until you have written the perfect Forth, the Forth that will save all mankind!!! (slide rules are optional) -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 20:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <6c554b40-a8af-4f66-9ce4-01ac2bf30a9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56884 |
On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 8:06:10 PM UTC-5, Rob Sciuk wrote: > > You know, Hugh, your inane and irrational rants against Ms. Rather are > growing more than tiresome. It is time to just get over whatever it is > that is up your butt and simply move on. > > Rob Sciuk Please at least snip the rants when you reply to them. We've read all of them before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-13 13:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <ocobjc$ks3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56884 |
On 4/8/2017 9:05 PM, Rob Sciuk wrote: > > You know, Hugh, your inane and irrational rants against Ms. Rather are > growing more than tiresome. It is time to just get over whatever it is > that is up your butt and simply move on. Somehow I missed this post until now. If you think there is anything you can say that will change the way Hugh is, you are mistaken. Hugh has a mental illness that causes him to act the way he does. He will never change until he gets treatment, assuming there is anything they *can* do to treat him. But his illness makes him think he has no problem, so he won't seek treatment. He will remain the way he is until he gets so bad he does something illegal and is forced to confront his problem. I wish he would get treatment. Certainly the life he lives is not a happy one. He could be a very good programmer and at least make a good income even if his job was not fulfilling. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 12:01 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <kLSdnbRlEvEdNtjFnZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #53080 |
HAA <someone@microsoft.com> wrote: > Fetching is relatively fast. It's the multiply used in simple > multidim arrays that slows it down. An array that lays down > pointers need only execute CELLS + @ for each index. Nothing comes > free and memory is traded for speed. Each case on its merits. Kinda sorta, but on today's processors multiplies and fetches both take about four or five cycles of latency. The difference is that you if you're multiplying you have to load the constant to multiply by as well as actually doing the multiplication. This constant might be in an immediate field, but probably isn't; if you're careful or lucky it's just a shift. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 10:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <09aa4594-cf4a-4b20-a32d-0dcc90fea3fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53089 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:01:43 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> HAA <someone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Fetching is relatively fast. It's the multiply used in simple
> > multidim arrays that slows it down. An array that lays down
> > pointers need only execute CELLS + @ for each index. Nothing comes
> > free and memory is traded for speed. Each case on its merits.
>
> Kinda sorta, but on today's processors multiplies and fetches both
> take about four or five cycles of latency. The difference is that you
> if you're multiplying you have to load the constant to multiply by as
> well as actually doing the multiplication. This constant might be in
> an immediate field, but probably isn't; if you're careful or lucky
> it's just a shift.
>
> Andrew.
I think it was an honest mistake for HAA to assume that I'm multiplying --- that is how 1ARRAY 2ARRAY etc. work (although if the dimension is a power of two then it is just a shift because LIT*, optimizes internally) --- by ARY doesn't use multiply.
I don't think it is an honest mistake for Andrew Haley to assume that I'm multiplying. He knows that my ARY was derived from his code. He also knows that my ARY is better than his code because I allow the array element to be any size, so you can have an array of structs, whereas he forces the array element to be cell size so you can only have an array of integers or an array of pointers. Andrew Haley is an employee of Elizabeth Rather and so he has to pretend that it is not possible to write an array definer that allows the array element to be any size --- also, as a practical matter, he is using CREATE DOES> which only allows one action to be associated with the array, and so he has no way to support generality in the element size.
It is a good point though that multiply on a modern processor is pretty fast (division continues to be a speed sink though). I never considered 1ARRAY 2ARRAY etc. to be inefficient. I switched over to ARY because it is a lot more convenient, and there is a lot less code generated (which could be an issue if there are a lot of arrays defined). I still have 1ARRAY 2ARRAY etc. in the novice-package --- I just encourage the use of ARY instead --- in Straight Forth I will only have ARY because I don't want redundancy; I want all the programs to look similar so code maintainers can learn how any particular program works quickly (this is more important to me than allowing everybody to be a cowboy and consequently have every program look different, like in ANS-Forth).
This is LIT*, that is used internally by 1ARRAY 2ARRAY etc..:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: lg ( u -- val|-1 ) \ -1 if not a power of 2
dup 0= if drop -1 exit then
0 begin \ -- u val
over 1 and 0= while 1+ >r 1 rshift r> repeat
over 1 xor if 2drop -1 exit then \ not a power of 2
nip ;
: lit*, ( mult -- ) \ runtime: n -- n*mult
dup 0 = if drop drop, 0 lit, exit then
dup 1 = if drop exit then
dup lg \ -- mult lg(mult)
dup 0< if drop lit, *,
else nip lit, lshift, then ;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 18:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) |
| Message-ID | <o24d07$2fu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #53091 |
On 12/5/2016 18:39, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > Andrew Haley is an > employee of Elizabeth Rather Really? -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web