Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #42092 > unrolled thread
| Started by | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-20 08:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-09 13:21 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-20 08:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 06:34 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-21 20:11 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:29 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-23 21:03 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 03:02 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 01:13 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-21 09:26 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-03 03:46 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-03 22:56 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 02:44 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 01:14 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 05:08 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 04:06 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-10-04 07:25 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 06:49 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 09:21 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-09 13:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 22:18 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 06:59 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 04:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 05:08 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 13:57 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 13:36 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-08 13:50 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 12:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 18:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-10 14:10 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-10 23:12 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-12 10:18 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:02 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-12 08:03 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-12 14:58 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-10-13 01:25 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-12 17:38 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-12 16:39 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:12 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 07:31 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-17 22:44 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-17 21:47 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 01:51 -0400
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-17 20:26 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-18 21:34 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-19 17:00 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-20 01:51 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-19 16:24 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 02:44 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-20 13:01 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 22:59 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 23:57 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-21 10:58 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-11 14:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-11 14:48 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 14:59 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-12 05:28 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 18:18 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-11 15:12 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-12 05:35 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-11-12 06:24 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-12 14:44 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 15:18 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-20 12:36 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-18 12:54 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-19 02:47 +0200
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 15:10 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 09:15 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-02 20:35 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 17:30 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-13 19:36 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 23:54 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:04 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:09 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-14 09:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 14:54 +0300
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:13 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 11:38 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 22:03 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 02:10 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 02:50 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-31 18:58 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 14:18 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-31 23:43 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-11-07 10:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-07 23:02 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-31 14:48 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:03 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 01:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 01:59 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 02:19 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 17:32 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 02:14 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:10 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 16:45 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 10:26 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 02:57 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 16:06 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 09:36 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-02 21:18 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 11:56 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 18:16 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 10:53 +0000
16-bit Forth for Linux Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-20 11:13 +0100
Re: 16-bit Forth for Linux Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-20 15:08 +0000
Re: 16-bit Forth for Linux Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-20 20:11 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:10 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 12:43 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-03 03:05 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 11:11 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-03 03:07 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 11:15 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:18 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 12:07 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 15:41 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-02 20:27 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 11:00 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 11:28 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 12:18 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 17:03 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 19:29 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:47 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-04 21:15 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-11-05 03:19 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 16:37 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 20:54 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-05 06:32 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-04 21:17 -0500
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 16:44 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 01:24 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-05 14:50 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 12:49 -0800
CMFORTH Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-06 08:43 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 10:46 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 05:52 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 14:52 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:32 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-02 20:04 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 22:31 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 18:49 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 12:24 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 19:45 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 22:30 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 10:42 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 14:08 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 14:07 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:34 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-04 17:32 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-05 23:00 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-06 07:27 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-06 22:04 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-07 16:07 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 13:58 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 15:04 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-04 14:30 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 11:57 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-04 12:06 -1000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-04 14:53 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:44 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-08 00:02 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 15:22 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-09 01:15 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:06 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 22:12 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 16:17 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-11 02:57 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-10 19:56 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:13 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-12 01:53 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 09:19 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 17:30 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-14 20:31 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 14:50 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 05:07 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 22:20 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-02 09:27 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 10:51 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-02 14:37 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-02 23:20 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 10:01 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 02:30 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-03 18:08 +0000
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 06:05 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 19:35 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 12:27 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-03 22:37 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 14:39 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-11-04 14:54 +0100
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 06:21 -0800
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-31 15:00 -0700
Re: EuroForth 2015 paper deadline approaching Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 13:21 -0800
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 04:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dcd7403-fae3-4ec0-bb16-cb771c2f73ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42449 |
There is one very simple reason why Forth will never have a large common repository for libraries and applications. In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word. Only comments are used to describe an interface. This also contributing to the plethora of implementations, and is good breeding ground for endless discussions about various trivialities of the Forth implementations. Best Wishes to all involved:-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96e08869-8862-4845-b3fb-d6cae4971efc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42452 |
On Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:24:38 UTC+1, Mikael Nordman wrote: > There is one very simple reason why Forth will never have a large common repository for libraries and applications. > > In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word. Only comments are used to describe an interface. > > This also contributing to the plethora of implementations, and is good breeding ground for endless discussions about various trivialities of the Forth implementations. > > Best Wishes to all involved:-) The stack is the interface! Whilst it's true that the stack signature is nothing but a comment, that's just how it's represented at the source code level - parameters are implicit in the sense that they are taken from the stack. They are not formally recorded in a parameter list as they are in C or other languages, because that's not how the Forth language works. At a documentation level however, the interfaces are formally specified just as with any other serious library/software application. I don't see a difference, to be honest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Oct8.155724@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #42452 |
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes:
>In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word.
Sure there is. The stack effect notation is an important part of the
standard, the various system documentations, and its use is important
in programming Forth. IIRC Stephen Pelc has said that not providing
that is a good way to get fired.
> Only comments are used to describe an interface.
And the problem with that 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1f5b95d-9c3b-4733-8184-fc1351c1376a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42457 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:01:11 PM UTC+3, Anton Ertl wrote: > Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes: > >In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word. > > Sure there is. The stack effect notation is an important part of the > standard, the various system documentations, and its use is important > in programming Forth. IIRC Stephen Pelc has said that not providing > that is a good way to get fired. > The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. (Even ignores the comments on CLF :-) > > Only comments are used to describe an interface. > > And the problem with that is? I am almost sure that a man with your education would understand that I mean a machine readable interface specification that can be programatically checked at least to some extent. That is one reason some other languages can have larger public repositories of library code. But of course programming using assembly language is not a problem either, it just makes building large repositories of software components with defined interfaces harder. > > - 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 13:50 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <366dnZV8Y8XFnIrLnZ2dnUU7-IednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #42464 |
On 10/8/15 10:36 AM, Mikael Nordman wrote: > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:01:11 PM UTC+3, Anton Ertl wrote: >> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes: >>> In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word. >> >> Sure there is. The stack effect notation is an important part of the >> standard, the various system documentations, and its use is important >> in programming Forth. IIRC Stephen Pelc has said that not providing >> that is a good way to get fired. >> > > The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. > (Even ignores the comments on CLF :-) That's part of the discipline of using Forth. You follow the stack comments. >>> Only comments are used to describe an interface. >> >> And the problem with that is? > > I am almost sure that a man with your education would understand that I mean a machine readable interface specification that can be programatically checked at least to some extent. People have experimented with compilers that do that. It never caught on. > That is one reason some other languages can have larger public repositories of library code. I doubt seriously whether there's any correlation. The two reasons I see for the relative lack of libraries in Forth are (1) many people find it easier to write the functions they need than to look for libraries and figure out how to use them, and (2) some people think it's more fun to write their own Forth than to write Forth programs and publish them. 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 | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2f4ebc7-8613-4b15-a131-cb98fb3b3b23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42469 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:50:50 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > I doubt seriously whether there's any correlation. The two reasons I see > for the relative lack of libraries in Forth are (1) many people find it > easier to write the functions they need than to look for libraries and > figure out how to use them, and (2) some people think it's more fun to > write their own Forth than to write Forth programs and publish them. #3. 5 IMPORT: SomeFunkyCFunctionConjunction
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 18:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87d1wo6e48.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #42464 |
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes: > I am almost sure that a man with your education would understand that > I mean a machine readable interface specification that can be > programatically checked at least to some extent. > That is one reason some other languages can have larger public > repositories of library code. It seems to me that 1) Python and Ruby have enormous libraries, and not much checking (more than Forth has, but that's not saying much); 2) There are also a huge number of interoperating Internet services using protocols specified in RFC's, which are purely informative text, not software at all so not machine checked. The good and bad points of machine checked type systems are one of the endless debates in programming and Forth culture seems to be that it doesn't help all that much. There's also an aspect of Forth that wants to keep all the code personally understood by the application developer, rather than relying on black boxes in the form of libraries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015Oct10.161057@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #42464 |
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:01:11 PM UTC+3, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes:
>> >In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word.
>>
>> Sure there is. The stack effect notation is an important part of the
>> standard, the various system documentations, and its use is important
>> in programming Forth. IIRC Stephen Pelc has said that not providing
>> that is a good way to get fired.
>>
>
>The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments.
So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify
the number and types of parameters and results of a word.
>> > Only comments are used to describe an interface.
>>
>> And the problem with that is?
>
>I am almost sure that a man with your education would understand that I mean a machine readable interface specification that can be programatically checked at least to some extent.
It's obvious that you mean that, but that does not answer the
question.
>That is one reason some other languages can have larger public repositories of library code.
Very unlikely. An early well-known public repository is for Perl
(CPAN), which is pretty weak on interface checking; another is on TeX
(CTAN), which does not really check interfaces at all.
Looking at it from the other side, C does have parameter lists that
are understood and checked by the compiler. Googling for "C Archive",
I found <http://ccodearchive.net/list.html>, and the code contained
there fits in a 1923K tarball; not really a success story. Other
examples are Ocaml and Haskell, which are very strong on checking
interfaces, but for which I did not find CPAN-like websites.
I think that, while static checking may be good for catching errors,
it restricts the generality of the components too much. The type
systems people added genericity and subtyping to reduce that effect,
but it is still there.
And I think that programmers who work in such languages also have a
different mindset: Preventing errors through typing is a bigger
concern for them than for, say, Perl or Python programmers; so, e.g.,
they might invent a new structure when an existing one might have been
usable, because they are thinking of later when they might add an
operation or field that is not appropriate for the existing type. As
a consequence, you cannot reuse the code for the existing structure.
Coming back to Forth, the way interfaces are specified has not been a
problem for using other people's code in my experience. I think that
memory management issues are a bigger problem. E.g., for a string
library there are many ways to deal with memory management, resulting
in many different string libraries (in addition to the NIH syndrome).
Which string library fits best may very much depend on the specific
needs of the application. The anti-library attitude in parts of the
community is no help, either.
- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d73bb8a-15b2-43ce-8326-9f6a821f01d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42548 |
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 7:53:48 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote: > Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes: > >That is one reason some other languages can have larger public repositories of library code. > > Very unlikely. I agree with Anton that it is very unlikely that this kind of error-checking helps a language to acquire a lot of code-libraries. It is irrelevant. Anyway, Forth allows functions to have a variable number of inputs and a variable number of outputs that are determined at run-time, so it can't be checked automatically. > The anti-library attitude in parts of the > community is no help, either. The reason why Forth doesn't have many code-libraries is because Elizabeth Rather is actively opposed to code-libraries and Forth programmers go along with that in order to avoid offending her --- nobody wants to get denounced for not being a Forth programmer as I was when I wrote my novice-package.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57de6c39-abfa-4c06-95f4-768c3bb7bcae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42548 |
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote: > Mikael Nordman <oh2aun.com> writes: > > > >The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. > > So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify > the number and types of parameters and results of a word. I am wondering why the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition. This would be a very helpful property of the word definition and could be called before a word will be used. Because the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition I have always to dig into the source code to find out which stack values are expected when calling a word - or I have to memorize it. Would there be a possibility one day to have stack notations available as part of the word definition string?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 14:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvgsgq$ei7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42601 |
On 10/12/2015 1:18 PM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote: >> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun.com> writes: >>> >>> The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. >> >> So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify >> the number and types of parameters and results of a word. > > I am wondering why the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition. > This would be a very helpful property of the word definition and could be called before a word will be used. > > Because the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition I have always to dig into the source code to find out which stack values are expected when calling a word - or I have to memorize it. > > Would there be a possibility one day to have stack notations available as part of the word definition string? Win32Forth has the word "locate" that displays the source for a word. Do you need more than that? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 08:03 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Osadnfu0Nph_aIbLnZ2dnUU7-L2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #42601 |
On 10/12/15 7:18 AM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote: >> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun.com> writes: >>> >>> The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. >> >> So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify >> the number and types of parameters and results of a word. > > I am wondering why the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition. > This would be a very helpful property of the word definition and could be called before a word will be used. > > Because the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition I have always to dig into the source code to find out which stack values are expected when calling a word - or I have to memorize it. That's easy on systems that include LOCATE. > Would there be a possibility one day to have stack notations available as part of the word definition string? I'm sure it's possible. Implementors who think it's important can do it any time. Mostly, they prefer LOCATE to show the source of a word. 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 | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72dc5e3e-0fd6-48a6-83ce-7805acf9d89e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42603 |
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/12/15 7:18 AM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote: > >> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun.com> writes: > >>> > >>> The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. > >> > >> So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify > >> the number and types of parameters and results of a word. > > > > I am wondering why the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition. > > This would be a very helpful property of the word definition and could be called before a word will be used. > > > > Because the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition I have always to dig into the source code to find out which stack values are expected when calling a word - or I have to memorize it. > > That's easy on systems that include LOCATE. > > > Would there be a possibility one day to have stack notations available as part of the word definition string? > > I'm sure it's possible. Implementors who think it's important can do it > any time. Mostly, they prefer LOCATE to show the source of a word. This only works if you actually have the source-code for the word --- but you don't in a code-library! --- everything you say about Forth seems to be predicated on the idea that code-libraries don't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 01:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bcz8nb944h05$.16e06dz773gpf.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #42606 |
Op Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:58:44 -0700 (PDT) schreef hughaguilar96@gmail.com: > On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/12/15 7:18 AM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote: >>>> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. >>>> >>>> So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify >>>> the number and types of parameters and results of a word. >>> >>> I am wondering why the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition. >>> This would be a very helpful property of the word definition and could be called before a word will be used. >>> >>> Because the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition I have always to dig into the source code to find out which stack values are expected when calling a word - or I have to memorize it. >> >> That's easy on systems that include LOCATE. >> >>> Would there be a possibility one day to have stack notations available as part of the word definition string? >> >> I'm sure it's possible. Implementors who think it's important can do it >> any time. Mostly, they prefer LOCATE to show the source of a word. > > This only works if you actually have the source-code for the word --- but you don't in a code-library! --- everything you say about Forth seems to be predicated on the idea that code-libraries don't exist. My LOCATE always works, the libraries written in Forth (and its assembler). And I have HELP that gives a description of the word, including the description of input and output parameters. groet Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <faaa761b-3533-4617-9551-bedf705a25c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42608 |
On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 4:25:46 PM UTC-7, Coos Haak wrote: > Op Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:58:44 -0700 (PDT) schreef hughaguilar96@gmail.com: > > > On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 10/12/15 7:18 AM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: > >>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote: > >>>> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun.com> writes: > >>>>> > >>>>> The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. > >>>> > >>>> So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify > >>>> the number and types of parameters and results of a word. > >>> > >>> I am wondering why the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition. > >>> This would be a very helpful property of the word definition and could be called before a word will be used. > >>> > >>> Because the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition I have always to dig into the source code to find out which stack values are expected when calling a word - or I have to memorize it. > >> > >> That's easy on systems that include LOCATE. > >> > >>> Would there be a possibility one day to have stack notations available as part of the word definition string? > >> > >> I'm sure it's possible. Implementors who think it's important can do it > >> any time. Mostly, they prefer LOCATE to show the source of a word. > > > > This only works if you actually have the source-code for the word --- but you don't in a code-library! --- everything you say about Forth seems to be predicated on the idea that code-libraries don't exist. > > My LOCATE always works, the libraries written in Forth (and its assembler). > And I have HELP that gives a description of the word, > including the description of input and output parameters. > > groet Coos I'm assuming that code-library writers don't provide their source-code but only provide a binary-overlay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 16:39 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <FJadnQi4C_FP84HLnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #42608 |
On 10/12/15 1:25 PM, Coos Haak wrote: > Op Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:58:44 -0700 (PDT) schreef hughaguilar96@gmail.com: > >> On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:03:16 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> On 10/12/15 7:18 AM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 10:53:48 AM UTC-4, Anton Ertl wrote: >>>>> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. >>>>> >>>>> So what? It is still possible and actually common practice to specify >>>>> the number and types of parameters and results of a word. >>>> >>>> I am wondering why the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition. >>>> This would be a very helpful property of the word definition and could be called before a word will be used. >>>> >>>> Because the stack effect notation is not part of a word definition I have always to dig into the source code to find out which stack values are expected when calling a word - or I have to memorize it. >>> >>> That's easy on systems that include LOCATE. >>> >>>> Would there be a possibility one day to have stack notations available as part of the word definition string? >>> >>> I'm sure it's possible. Implementors who think it's important can do it >>> any time. Mostly, they prefer LOCATE to show the source of a word. >> >> This only works if you actually have the source-code for the word --- but you don't in a code-library! --- everything you say about Forth seems to be predicated on the idea that code-libraries don't exist. > > My LOCATE always works, the libraries written in Forth (and its assembler). > And I have HELP that gives a description of the word, > including the description of input and output parameters. It's hard to imagine anyone wanting a library without source. 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 19:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvc5t7$quc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42464 |
On 10/8/2015 4:36 PM, Mikael Nordman wrote: > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:01:11 PM UTC+3, Anton Ertl wrote: >> Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> writes: >>> In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word. >> >> Sure there is. The stack effect notation is an important part of the >> standard, the various system documentations, and its use is important >> in programming Forth. IIRC Stephen Pelc has said that not providing >> that is a good way to get fired. >> > > The stack effect notation is not a programming language notation, it is just a comment. The compiler and interpreter just ignores comments. > (Even ignores the comments on CLF :-) > > >>> Only comments are used to describe an interface. >> >> And the problem with that is? > > I am almost sure that a man with your education would understand that I mean a machine readable interface specification that can be programatically checked at least to some extent. > > That is one reason some other languages can have larger public repositories of library code. > > But of course programming using assembly language is not a problem either, it just makes building large repositories of software components with defined interfaces harder. I wonder about this sometimes. I'm not really sure how important it is to have the compiler check my parameters for me. When I started programming in Fortran parameter checking didn't exist other than possibly the count. Today no language has a way to check that the parameters I am passing are the "correct" parameters other than possibly the type. So just how important is that checking? One common bug in Forth is messing up the number of parameters which is something easily checked by a compiler. But as Jeff Fox explained once, this type of mistake only shows that the programmer can't count... -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 07:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50f42d9d-f1b1-46f3-8b57-da39bab554d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42452 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:24:38 PM UTC+1, Mikael Nordman wrote: > There is one very simple reason why Forth will never have a large common repository for libraries and applications. > > In Forth there is no way to specify an interface. It is not even possible to specify the amount of parameters to word. Only comments are used to describe an interface. > > This also contributing to the plethora of implementations, and is good breeding ground for endless discussions about various trivialities of the Forth implementations. > > Best Wishes to all involved:-) This was my starting point of decoupling commercial and other. You can do anything in Forth - if the 2 main suppliers set a standard - others can use it or not - for them nothing changes. IO or libraries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 22:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mvubrr$vuv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42459 |
JUERGEN wrote: > This was my starting point of decoupling commercial and other. > You can do anything in Forth - if the 2 main suppliers set a standard - > others can use it or not - for them nothing changes. Well, they then can only follow, and not contribute. I find it rather bizarre that you first mention the experience of an open group which accepted your input, and then you suggest that you want two benevolent dictators of your choice. Then it's no longer open, but an exclusive club of Steven and Leon. In the single-implementation languages, you often have such a benevolent dictator. However, it's typically free software, and not some commercial vendor, and the benevolent dictator is followed, because he created the language in the first place. In a few cases, like Java, and the development environments for Apple and Microsoft, it is a commercial vendor, but a big one, with lots of brainwashing of the user base. Actually, what you propose is what Hugh is accusing the committee: that the people there are just sock puppets of the vendors. In fact, the committee is set up of users and free and commercial system implementers, and that's a good thing. Standards created by only a subset of those who are interested don't get traction. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 21:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <519456b8-7631-4881-a01d-4f34583a0683@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42689 |
On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 1:44:43 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > JUERGEN wrote: > > This was my starting point of decoupling commercial and other. > > You can do anything in Forth - if the 2 main suppliers set a standard - > > others can use it or not - for them nothing changes. > > Well, they then can only follow, and not contribute. I find it rather > bizarre that you first mention the experience of an open group which > accepted your input, and then you suggest that you want two benevolent > dictators of your choice. Then it's no longer open, but an exclusive club > of Steven and Leon. > > In the single-implementation languages, you often have such a benevolent > dictator. However, it's typically free software, and not some commercial > vendor, and the benevolent dictator is followed, because he created the > language in the first place. In a few cases, like Java, and the development > environments for Apple and Microsoft, it is a commercial vendor, but a big > one, with lots of brainwashing of the user base. > > Actually, what you propose is what Hugh is accusing the committee: that the > people there are just sock puppets of the vendors. In fact, the committee > is set up of users and free and commercial system implementers, and that's a > good thing. Standards created by only a subset of those who are interested > don't get traction. Juergen attended EuroForth-2015 --- you said that you weren't going to attend, so I assume that you didn't attend --- this implies that Juergen's understanding of the gist of the meeting is better than yours. We would ask Leon Wagner if he agrees to be the dictator of the Forth world, but he never deigns to come to comp.lang.forth and he instead has his sock-puppets do his talking for him --- it seems reasonable to assume that he does consider himself to be the dictator of every Forth programmer on the planet, which has been obvious to me since 2009 when I first joined the Forth-200x mailing-list and discovered that he has veto power over every suggestion made by the plebians (he killed my ALLOCATION RfD without bothering to read it).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web