Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #48647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-01 17:18 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-03 22:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-01 17:18 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 11:45 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 14:46 -0400
Re: RfD: new double syntax Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 11:47 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-02 14:54 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax mhx@iae.nl - 2016-07-01 11:48 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-02 14:52 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-01 09:10 -1000
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 19:10 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 06:23 +0000
RfD: new double syntax krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-01 20:54 -0700
RfD: new double syntax krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-01 21:18 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-01 22:26 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 22:32 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 01:16 -0400
Re: RfD: new double syntax Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 08:34 +0300
Re: RfD: new double syntax rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 03:00 -0400
Re: RfD: new double syntax Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 10:20 +0300
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-03 08:29 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 23:10 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 23:20 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 03:02 -0400
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-02 14:20 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-02 14:11 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax josv@planet.nl - 2016-07-02 00:26 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-01 22:22 -1000
Re: RfD: new double syntax "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-07-02 22:02 +1000
Re: RfD: new double syntax "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-02 11:19 -1000
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-02 14:02 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-02 04:03 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-02 13:44 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 07:38 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-02 07:42 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 22:44 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-02 09:58 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-02 11:32 -1000
Re: RfD: new double syntax "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 00:27 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 08:05 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-04 03:50 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-04 03:53 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-02 17:32 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 10:52 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2016-07-02 13:03 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-03 15:02 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 11:18 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-07-03 21:19 +0200
Re: RfD: new double syntax Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-03 11:36 +0100
Re: RfD: new double syntax Gerard Sontag <gerardsontag@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 06:58 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-03 14:21 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax Gerard Sontag <gerardsontag@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 07:55 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 08:08 -0700
Dealing with multiple recognizers (was: RfD: new double syntax) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-03 15:13 +0000
Re: Dealing with multiple recognizers (was: RfD: new double syntax) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-03 09:57 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 01:12 -0400
Re: RfD: new double syntax Gerard Sontag <gerardsontag@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 07:56 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 11:18 -0400
Re: RfD: new double syntax JennyB <jennybrien@googlemail.com> - 2016-07-03 08:15 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-03 12:42 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-07-03 09:32 -1000
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 07:34 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:35 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 09:00 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-07-04 09:51 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-04 11:20 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-07-06 04:08 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-06 06:24 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Alex McDonald <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-07-06 12:38 +0100
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-06 06:46 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-07-06 13:37 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-07 03:28 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2016-08-04 23:59 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-04 19:26 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-04 17:34 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-05 02:57 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-05 13:15 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-06 01:56 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-07 17:22 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-08 04:56 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax josv@planet.nl - 2016-08-08 08:50 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-08 12:26 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax josv@planet.nl - 2016-08-08 15:41 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax mhx@iae.nl - 2016-08-08 23:06 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax josv@planet.nl - 2016-08-09 00:57 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-09 03:05 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-10 01:46 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-10 19:07 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2016-08-11 05:24 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax josv@planet.nl - 2016-08-06 04:50 -0700
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-08-05 12:01 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-07-04 08:51 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-07-04 04:03 -0500
Re: RfD: new double syntax anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-07-03 14:56 +0000
Re: RfD: new double syntax Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2016-07-03 22:00 +0100
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3be6ad9f-9949-4943-8586-2602dcf8f920@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48732 |
> I mark all of WJ's posts as being abusive so they become hidden. He is just a troll. Posting OCaml code (or Gauche Scheme code or whatever) on a Forth forum is spam. Also, his taglines referencing rape of women and children are offensive. Also, his unsolicited support for me (calling Leon Wagner a "neanderthal") is offensive --- I don't want him to support me --- neither do the OCaml or Gauche Scheme developers want him to support them, etc.. > > Now we have the troll Rickman responding to the troll WJ's posts --- are WJ's posts not actually being hidden? --- is Rickman removing the abusive tag from them so he can respond to them? I've always seen WJ's posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 03:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlad9g$o3f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48733 |
On 7/3/2016 2:20 AM, Raimond Dragomir wrote: >> I mark all of WJ's posts as being abusive so they become hidden. He is just a troll. Posting OCaml code (or Gauche Scheme code or whatever) on a Forth forum is spam. Also, his taglines referencing rape of women and children are offensive. Also, his unsolicited support for me (calling Leon Wagner a "neanderthal") is offensive --- I don't want him to support me --- neither do the OCaml or Gauche Scheme developers want him to support them, etc.. >> >> Now we have the troll Rickman responding to the troll WJ's posts --- are WJ's posts not actually being hidden? --- is Rickman removing the abusive tag from them so he can respond to them? > > I've always seen WJ's posts. I'm guessing Hugh is using Google Groups rather than a news reader. I don't know how you would flag a post as "abusive" unless it is only in your own reader or in GG. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 14:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Jul2.162030@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #48677 |
krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org writes:
>Krishna Myneni wrote:
>> Sorry, I don't like the proposed notation because it puts an arithmetic operator (*) in front of the number.
>
>How about a trailing underscore for designating a double number, e.g.
>
> 1_
There has been some discussion about _ as a group separator even for
single-cell numbers, e.g.
1_000_000_000_000_000_000
instead of
1000000000000000000
No existing practice yet, AFAIK, but do we want to block this path?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Jul2.161121@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #48675 |
krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>...
>> In the long term, make "1." either non-standard or (even longer-term) ..=
>.
>
>
>Yes, I think we should deprecate the use of a trailing decimal point for th=
>e entry of double numbers, because it is such a different use than in other=
> languages. On the other hand, I don't believe we should change the require=
>d notation for interpreting floating point numbers at all. Thus, unless "1.=
>" is a defined word, it should not be valid to the interpreter as either a =
>double number or a floating point number.
If this proposal is accepted, and later the (then obsolescent) "1."
notation is destandardized, "1." would not be a number of any kind in
the standard. Standardizing it as FP number would be another
proposal; from the reactions on this proposal my guess is that we will
never see such a proposal (just as we don't see a proposal for NOT),
because "1." will be accepted by some systems as double number
forever, so any other interpretation would be in conflict.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | josv@planet.nl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 00:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19e8d7e5-0fb8-4369-83f8-67e56e000d92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48647 |
It will break a lot of old code
IMO stability is more important.
Newcomers will not use doubles directly.
To enter a float I use mostly something like 1.2e
Jos
On juli 1, 2016 19:26:50 UTC+2 Anton Ertl wrote:
> Problem
> -------
>
> People coming from other languages expect "1." to be a floating-point
> number. Standard Forth requires that "1." is interpreted as a
> double-wide integer number. While some people hail every gratuitious
> difference from other languages as a sign of our independence, this
> makes Forth harder to teach and damages the reputation among
> newcomers: First when they trip across this trap, and further when
> they hear about the reason for this behaviour.
>
>
> Solution
> --------
>
> In the long term, make "1." either non-standard or (even longer-term)
> even make it a floating-point number in the standard. However, we
> still need a syntax for double-wide integers, and we need to introduce
> this first (and in parallel to the "1." syntax). So here I propose
> using the syntax "*1" for double-wide integers.
>
> This is just one possible syntax, so if you absolutely cannot live
> with it, I am happy to go for a different one that everybody can live
> with. But I don't want a bike-shedding discussion, so "I find <other
> syntax> more pleasing" or "How about <other syntax>" is not a good
> argument; a conflict of the proposed syntax with existing practice
> would be a good argument, though.
>
> The further steps would be to make the new syntax standard in the next
> standard (N), and make the "1." syntax obsolescent. Then
> de-standardize "1." in standard N+1. If we then want to standardize
> "1." as FP number, either have one revision cooldown period for this
> syntax and standardize "1." as floating-point value in N+2, or already
> in N+1 without cooldown period. Yes, it takes long, that's why I want
> to get started.
>
> Proposal
> --------
>
> In "8.3.1 Text interpreter input number conversion", replace
>
> |When the text interpreter processes a number, except a <cnum>, that is
> |immediately followed by a decimal point and is not found as a
> |definition name, the text interpreter shall convert it to a
> |double-cell number.
>
> with
>
> |When the text interpreter processes a number, except a <cnum>, that is
> |immediately preceded by an asterisk or (obsolescent) immediately
> |followed by a decimal point, and is not found as a definition name,
> |the text interpreter shall convert it to a double-cell number.
>
>
> Typical usage
> -------------
>
> *-1
> *$f
> *#-1
>
>
> Reference implementation
> ------------------------
>
> When we get recognizers ...:-)
>
> Test cases
> ----------
>
> T{ *#-1 -- -1 -1 }T
> T{ *1 -- 1 0 }T
> T{ *$ff -- 255 0 }T
>
> Experience
> ----------
>
> None.
>
> - anton
> --
> M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
> comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
> New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
> EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 22:22 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ZamdnQDNmdAh5OrKnZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48685 |
On 7/1/16 9:26 PM, josv@planet.nl wrote:
> It will break a lot of old code
> IMO stability is more important.
Agreed.
> Newcomers will not use doubles directly.
Maybe, but it's often easy to set parameters, etc., as doubles,
especially on 16-bit platforms (which are still in wide use).
> To enter a float I use mostly something like 1.2e
Sure. That doesn't seem onerous.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
>
> Jos
>
> On juli 1, 2016 19:26:50 UTC+2 Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Problem
>> -------
>>
>> People coming from other languages expect "1." to be a floating-point
>> number. Standard Forth requires that "1." is interpreted as a
>> double-wide integer number. While some people hail every gratuitious
>> difference from other languages as a sign of our independence, this
>> makes Forth harder to teach and damages the reputation among
>> newcomers: First when they trip across this trap, and further when
>> they hear about the reason for this behaviour.
>>
>>
>> Solution
>> --------
>>
>> In the long term, make "1." either non-standard or (even longer-term)
>> even make it a floating-point number in the standard. However, we
>> still need a syntax for double-wide integers, and we need to introduce
>> this first (and in parallel to the "1." syntax). So here I propose
>> using the syntax "*1" for double-wide integers.
>>
>> This is just one possible syntax, so if you absolutely cannot live
>> with it, I am happy to go for a different one that everybody can live
>> with. But I don't want a bike-shedding discussion, so "I find <other
>> syntax> more pleasing" or "How about <other syntax>" is not a good
>> argument; a conflict of the proposed syntax with existing practice
>> would be a good argument, though.
>>
>> The further steps would be to make the new syntax standard in the next
>> standard (N), and make the "1." syntax obsolescent. Then
>> de-standardize "1." in standard N+1. If we then want to standardize
>> "1." as FP number, either have one revision cooldown period for this
>> syntax and standardize "1." as floating-point value in N+2, or already
>> in N+1 without cooldown period. Yes, it takes long, that's why I want
>> to get started.
>>
>> Proposal
>> --------
>>
>> In "8.3.1 Text interpreter input number conversion", replace
>>
>> |When the text interpreter processes a number, except a <cnum>, that is
>> |immediately followed by a decimal point and is not found as a
>> |definition name, the text interpreter shall convert it to a
>> |double-cell number.
>>
>> with
>>
>> |When the text interpreter processes a number, except a <cnum>, that is
>> |immediately preceded by an asterisk or (obsolescent) immediately
>> |followed by a decimal point, and is not found as a definition name,
>> |the text interpreter shall convert it to a double-cell number.
>>
>>
>> Typical usage
>> -------------
>>
>> *-1
>> *$f
>> *#-1
>>
>>
>> Reference implementation
>> ------------------------
>>
>> When we get recognizers ...:-)
>>
>> Test cases
>> ----------
>>
>> T{ *#-1 -- -1 -1 }T
>> T{ *1 -- 1 0 }T
>> T{ *$ff -- 255 0 }T
>>
>> Experience
>> ----------
>>
>> None.
>>
>> - anton
>> --
>> M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
>> comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
>> New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
>> EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
>
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 22:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nl8acv$pcv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #48687 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 7/1/16 9:26 PM, josv@planet.nl wrote: > > It will break a lot of old code > > IMO stability is more important. > > Agreed. > > > Newcomers will not use doubles directly. > > Maybe, but it's often easy to set parameters, etc., as doubles, > especially on 16-bit platforms (which are still in wide use). Anyone using Forth on a 16-bit platform will have far more interesting problems to solve than how to enter a double number! There are greater challenges to a Forth newcomer than the sight of doubles in Forth code. Lack of type-checking is the big one. It can be a challenge even for experienced Forthers. Yet newcomers take it in their stride without any drama. If the trailing dot notation for doubles is changed in Forth it will be for reasons other than newcomers couldn't handle it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 11:19 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <iJSdnadbPqJ7suXKnZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48690 |
On 7/2/16 2:02 AM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 7/1/16 9:26 PM, josv@planet.nl wrote: >>> It will break a lot of old code >>> IMO stability is more important. >> >> Agreed. >> >>> Newcomers will not use doubles directly. >> >> Maybe, but it's often easy to set parameters, etc., as doubles, >> especially on 16-bit platforms (which are still in wide use). > > Anyone using Forth on a 16-bit platform will have far more > interesting problems to solve than how to enter a double > number! > > There are greater challenges to a Forth newcomer than the > sight of doubles in Forth code. Lack of type-checking is the > big one. It can be a challenge even for experienced Forthers. > Yet newcomers take it in their stride without any drama. > > If the trailing dot notation for doubles is changed in Forth it > will be for reasons other than newcomers couldn't handle it. Indeed. Anyone who's going to be upset by a language that's different from others isn't going to get far with Forth. Double integers is a microscopic issue compared with the stack and other prominent features. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 14:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Jul2.160217@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #48685 |
josv@planet.nl writes:
>It will break a lot of old code
When "1." is finally de-standardized and systems actually remove it,
yes. Solution: Run the programs through a converter that converts,
e.g., "1." into "*1".
>Newcomers will not use doubles directly.
>To enter a float I use mostly something like 1.2e
The problem is newcomers writing, say "1." and expecting to get an FP
number. They silently get something else, and at some later point the
program visible does not expect as they expect. Yes, they did not
intend to use doubles, and yes, you write floats differently, but that
does not help them at all.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 04:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <adCdneiFRM7LHurKnZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48647 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > Experience > ---------- > > None. I would argue that this proposal should be considered and then rejected for lack of existing practice. It would be appropriate for implementers to offer this as an experimental mode and see where that goes. If it does become common practice, then a future standard could sanctify it. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 13:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2016Jul2.154436@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #48688 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>
>> Experience
>> ----------
>>
>> None.
>
>I would argue that this proposal should be considered and then
>rejected for lack of existing practice.
Actually the reason for this proposal is due to a conflict with the
existing practice of other programming languages.
>It would be appropriate for
>implementers to offer this as an experimental mode and see where that
>goes. If it does become common practice, then a future standard could
>sanctify it.
I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you
think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented
*1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any
complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty?
No, this is the kind of proposal where people have to make a conscious
decision that, yes, we care about beginners tripping over "1.", and we
want to do something about it, even if that means, e.g., running
existing programs through a converter when the "1." syntax is finally
destandardized (if the system then indeed stops supporting that
syntax). Or they make a decision that, no, leaving existing programs
completely alone is more important than avoiding pitfalls for
beginning Forth programmers. In the latter case that decision is not
going to change no matter how much experience there is.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eca3cae1-b53d-4aca-ae1e-ea27db89ee35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48691 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 7:02:02 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> > >> Experience > >> ---------- > >> > >> None. > > > >I would argue that this proposal should be considered and then > >rejected for lack of existing practice. > > Actually the reason for this proposal is due to a conflict with the > existing practice of other programming languages. > > >It would be appropriate for > >implementers to offer this as an experimental mode and see where that > >goes. If it does become common practice, then a future standard could > >sanctify it. > > I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you > think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented > *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any > complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty? I agree that it is absurd to have an "experimental mode" for something as fundamental as what a number looks like. Andrew Haley is just patronizing you --- tell you to go try out your experiment in a corner by yourself, and maybe a future Standard committee will sanctify it, unless they don't sanctify it and just tell you to go try out your experiment in a corner by yourself, etc. --- your RfD has been filed for future consideration (a special kind of file cabinet that is round and sits on the floor beside Leon Wagner's desk). You criticized me for not taking it well when Leon Wagner killed my RfD --- now you get to pout in public when Leon Wagner kills your RfD. > No, this is the kind of proposal where people have to make a conscious > decision that, yes, we care about beginners tripping over "1.", and we > want to do something about it, even if that means, e.g., running > existing programs through a converter when the "1." syntax is finally > destandardized (if the system then indeed stops supporting that > syntax). Or they make a decision that, no, leaving existing programs > completely alone is more important than avoiding pitfalls for > beginning Forth programmers. In the latter case that decision is not > going to change no matter how much experience there is. Andrew Haley is an employee of Forth Inc., so it is not surprising that he agrees with Leon Wagner and Elizabeth Rather. All of the Forth-200x committee members, including yourself and Andrew Haley, were appointed to the committee by Elizabeth Rather. So long as you remain on the Forth-200x committee, you have to just believe what Elizabeth Rather tells you to believe. Abandon ANS-Forth and Forth-200x --- I will put you on the committee for Straight Forth --- you can do whatever you want to do, so long as you adhere to the 5 principles. The reason why Forth-200x has been spinning its wheels for over a decade is that Forth-200x doesn't have any principles that you are supposed to adhere to --- Forth-200x has a principal instead!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <996e51f0-a6cc-410f-b456-1b786d21aabb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48697 |
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 7:38:37 AM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > Abandon ANS-Forth and Forth-200x --- I will put you on the committee for Straight Forth --- you can do whatever you want to do, so long as you adhere to the 5 principles. I'll tell you what --- I will even make you the chair-person of the committee! --- I don't want to be the chair-person; I have written the 5 principles, so I think my job is complete and the details will be up to the committee.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl9g3s$hp0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48697 |
hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you > > think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented > > *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any > > complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty? > > I agree that it is absurd to have an > "experimental mode" for something as > fundamental as what a number looks like. > > Andrew Haley is just patronizing you --- > tell you to go try out your experiment in a > corner by yourself, and maybe a future > Standard committee will sanctify it, unless > they don't sanctify it and just tell you to > go try out your experiment in a corner by > yourself, etc. --- your RfD has been filed > for future consideration (a special kind of > file cabinet that is round and sits on the > floor beside Leon Wagner's desk). > > You criticized me for not taking it well > when Leon Wagner killed my RfD --- now you > get to pout in public when Leon Wagner kills > your RfD. > > > No, this is the kind of proposal where people have to make a conscious > > decision that, yes, we care about beginners tripping over "1.", and we > > want to do something about it, even if that means, e.g., running > > existing programs through a converter when the "1." syntax is finally > > destandardized (if the system then indeed stops supporting that > > syntax). Or they make a decision that, no, leaving existing programs > > completely alone is more important than avoiding pitfalls for > > beginning Forth programmers. In the latter case that decision is not > > going to change no matter how much experience there is. > > Andrew Haley is an employee of Forth Inc., The committee was not created by Forth, Inc. to make things easier for users of Forth. The committee was created by Forth, Inc. to make things as easy as possible for Forth, Inc. -- I don't believe in western morality, i.e. don't kill civilians or children.... The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle). --- Rabbi Manis Friedman web.archive.org/web/20090605154706/http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-06/200906-Ask_Rabbis.html archive.org/download/DavidDukeVideo/TheZionistMatrixOfPowerddhd.ogv
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl8kps$e1e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48691 |
On 7/2/2016 8:44 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> >>> Experience >>> ---------- >>> >>> None. >> >> I would argue that this proposal should be considered and then >> rejected for lack of existing practice. > > Actually the reason for this proposal is due to a conflict with the > existing practice of other programming languages. > >> It would be appropriate for >> implementers to offer this as an experimental mode and see where that >> goes. If it does become common practice, then a future standard could >> sanctify it. > > I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you > think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented > *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any > complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty? > > No, this is the kind of proposal where people have to make a conscious > decision that, yes, we care about beginners tripping over "1.", and we > want to do something about it, even if that means, e.g., running > existing programs through a converter when the "1." syntax is finally > destandardized (if the system then indeed stops supporting that > syntax). Or they make a decision that, no, leaving existing programs > completely alone is more important than avoiding pitfalls for > beginning Forth programmers. In the latter case that decision is not > going to change no matter how much experience there is. > > - anton > One wonders where this attitude was (standing up for principles ) when the current standard was approved? Nowhere to be seen, it seems that getting along with all methods in use was placed above making the "Standard" clear and without missing pieces. One wonders if before adopting the language a version of Forth was written that was 100% in compliance with no secret stuff added, and then used to create applications and Forth itself, I don't know for sure if it was tried but I bet it wasn't done with a 100% clean Forth that met the "Standard" and nothing else. Making everyone happy was chosen over clarity, that doomed that effort. and was worse than a waste of time, it doomed the language to third rate at best, and in the new version we are doubling down on that doomed premise. Just the quote from a famous movie "Stupid is as stupid does" is very valid. -- Cecil - k5nwa
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 11:32 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <VZudnd0cr_Zyr-XKnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48691 |
On 7/2/16 3:44 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >> Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> >>> Experience >>> ---------- >>> >>> None. >> >> I would argue that this proposal should be considered and then >> rejected for lack of existing practice. > > Actually the reason for this proposal is due to a conflict with the > existing practice of other programming languages. > >> It would be appropriate for >> implementers to offer this as an experimental mode and see where that >> goes. If it does become common practice, then a future standard could >> sanctify it. > > I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you > think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented > *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any > complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty? The appropriate path is to wait a while and see how many systems implement it. That's the path that's been followed in the past. > No, this is the kind of proposal where people have to make a conscious > decision that, yes, we care about beginners tripping over "1.", and we > want to do something about it, even if that means, e.g., running > existing programs through a converter when the "1." syntax is finally > destandardized (if the system then indeed stops supporting that > syntax). Or they make a decision that, no, leaving existing programs > completely alone is more important than avoiding pitfalls for > beginning Forth programmers. In the latter case that decision is not > going to change no matter how much experience there is. In this case, IMO the magnitude of this particular pitfall doesn't justify the introduction of an unnecessarily ugly notation. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 00:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl9m5p$2oa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #48691 |
Anton Ertl wrote:
> I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you
> think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented
> *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any
> complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty?
OCaml:
let s = {|
I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Do you
think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have implemented
*1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received any
complaints." Will it be better after ten years? Fifty?
|};;
[22;61;28;27;3;145;15;6;18;12;3;27;28;3;22;28;3;121;14;5;22;14;3;22;
28;3;22;3;14;15;15;6;61;22;27;45;121;62]
|> List.fold_left
(fun str n -> str ^ (String.make 1 s.[n]))
""
|> String.uppercase
|> print_endline ;;
ANSI FORTH IS AS "DEAD AS A DOORNAIL".
--
Amazon bans book. After nearly a month on the site, all traces of the book and
its 80 reviews have been removed.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/11/debunking-sandy-hook-debunkers-5.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEl_1HWFRfo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 08:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <482a5986-ee19-4c2b-ba51-f2b1e0f95c37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #48691 |
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 1:51:01 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote: > Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > >>I would argue that this proposal should be considered and then > >>rejected for lack of existing practice. > > > > Actually the reason for this proposal is due to a conflict with the > > existing practice of other programming languages. > > That's right, I'm sure. There is no good purpose in gratuitous weirdness. Certainly Forth has differences from other programming languages, but it also has a lot in common with other programming languages --- all programming languages use numbers, so they have that that much in common --- it is not a good idea for Forth programmers to make bold statements such as: "We defined our own numbers, which look different from everybody else's numbers, because we are geniuses!" I mean, even Albert Einstein's numbers looked the same as everybody else's numbers --- how many people would have bothered to read his Theory of Relativity if the first thing he had done was introduce a new and funky way to write numbers? > >>It would be appropriate for implementers to offer this as an > >>experimental mode and see where that goes. If it does become common > >>practice, then a future standard could sanctify it. > > > > I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. > > Perhaps not, but that doesn't make it a bad path. Andrew Haley is an employee of Forth Inc.. Leon Wagner, Andrew Haley's boss, has already killed the RfD. Andrew is basically saying that Anton' RfD has been filed for future consideration (the round file) and that Anton should go sit in a corner and experiment with it by himself because maybe the boss will reconsider at some future date, unless he doesn't (Leon Wagner has actually never backed down from any decision that he has made in regard to Forth-200x). > > Do you think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have > > implemented *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received > > any complaints." > > I don't understand what you mean by this. Nobody is proposing to use > anything like *1 for double numbers, so this is irrelevant. This reminds me of how Leon Wagner killed my ALLOCATE RfD --- he said that he had never seen anything about how this had anything to do with linked lists, yet linked lists were the only example I had provided in the RfD --- it was abundantly obvious that he had not actually read the RfD. Maybe one of his employees, such as Andrew Haley, had given him an "executive summary" of the RfD --- maybe also gave him a back massage at the same time. > We have to distinguish between compatible and incompatible changes. A > feature like quotations is fairly easy to implement and can be made > optional. It isn't going to break very much. The same cannot be said > for changing the syntax of double numbers. One of the crimes of Forth-200x is that they steal the words and change their meanings. Everybody knows that quotations, by definition, have access to the parent function's local variables. The Forth-200x committee have their Paysan-faked quotations that lack this feature and hence aren't quotations --- but the Forth-200x committee call them quotations anyway --- people such as Andrew Haley don't know the difference between chicken-salad and chicken-shit, so they are fine with the new meaning of the word. This is very similar to how, in George Orwell's book "1984," all the words had been given new meaning --- "freedom" meant "slavery," "peace" meant "war," etc.. > We've been down the road of Forth standard committees adopting untried > designs and it hasn't always worked out well. The poster child for > this is the Forth-83 DO...LOOP which seemed cute at the time but it > was a bad design. Forth users have been putting up with (and > occasionally cursing) its bizarre semantics ever since. The only way > to prevent such failures is to insist that no substantive changes are > adopted without reasonably wide testing in the real world. Another good way to prevent such failures is for the designers to do more thinking and less talking. Note that Forth Inc. has screwed up every Standard so far --- Forth-79, Forth-83 and ANS-Forth --- now Forth Inc. is in charge of the Forth-200x Standard...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 03:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Y9mdncSSSajtvufKnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48691 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> >>> Experience >>> ---------- >>> >>> None. >> >>I would argue that this proposal should be considered and then >>rejected for lack of existing practice. > > Actually the reason for this proposal is due to a conflict with the > existing practice of other programming languages. That's right, I'm sure. >>It would be appropriate for implementers to offer this as an >>experimental mode and see where that goes. If it does become common >>practice, then a future standard could sanctify it. > > I very much doubt that this is a path that leads to adoption. Perhaps not, but that doesn't make it a bad path. > Do you think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have > implemented *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received > any complaints." I don't understand what you mean by this. Nobody is proposing to use anything like *1 for double numbers, so this is irrelevant. > Will it be better after ten years? Fifty? > > No, this is the kind of proposal where people have to make a > conscious decision that, yes, we care about beginners tripping over > "1.", and we want to do something about it, even if that means, > e.g., running existing programs through a converter when the "1." > syntax is finally destandardized (if the system then indeed stops > supporting that syntax). Forth has many unusual features, of which this is but one. If you want to create a Forth which uses a more "beginner-friendly" notation for double numbers (or anything else) you can do that. But expecting everyone else immediately to dance to the same tune is unreasonable. > Or they make a decision that, no, leaving existing programs > completely alone is more important than avoiding pitfalls for > beginning Forth programmers. In the latter case that decision is > not going to change no matter how much experience there is. That's not true. If people have adopted the proposed change then the existing programs will no longer be a problem and there will be a general clamour to adopt the new syntax. We have to distinguish between compatible and incompatible changes. A feature like quotations is fairly easy to implement and can be made optional. It isn't going to break very much. The same cannot be said for changing the syntax of double numbers. We've been down the road of Forth standard committees adopting untried designs and it hasn't always worked out well. The poster child for this is the Forth-83 DO...LOOP which seemed cute at the time but it was a bad design. Forth users have been putting up with (and occasionally cursing) its bizarre semantics ever since. The only way to prevent such failures is to insist that no substantive changes are adopted without reasonably wide testing in the real world. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 03:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Y9mdnceSSaiTuefKnZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #48785 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > >> Do you think that anybody will be convinced by a report "We have >> implemented *1 for a double 1 for three years, and have not received >> any complaints." > > I don't understand what you mean by this. Nobody is proposing to use > anything like *1 for double numbers, so this is irrelevant. Oh dear. I should have read the whole thread before posting. Somebody is indeed proposing to use *1. Ugh. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web