Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #52738 > unrolled thread
| Started by | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 159 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 13:34 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-20 00:53 +0000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 14:46 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-19 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 20:10 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 01:18 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 01:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 02:16 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:36 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-20 07:48 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 23:36 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 02:03 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-20 21:49 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 03:33 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 08:52 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-20 12:05 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 10:43 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 00:02 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 01:00 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 01:13 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-22 20:54 +0000
Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-27 13:32 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 18:52 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-28 15:00 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-27 18:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 20:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-29 15:22 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 00:42 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-28 22:20 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 17:18 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-11-29 23:15 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 07:08 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 21:51 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:09 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 09:43 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-11-30 17:36 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-30 14:31 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:02 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-01 08:58 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:44 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-05 21:28 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 07:41 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-06 18:13 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-05 21:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-08 10:09 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-07 15:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-08 04:22 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-08 17:05 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 01:47 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-09 04:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 06:49 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 10:15 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) josv@planet.nl - 2017-04-12 04:47 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-12-07 14:34 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 18:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-10 09:38 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:25 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 00:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-12-06 12:01 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-08 21:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-08 18:57 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 05:28 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 06:45 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-10 16:54 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 17:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-04-11 08:03 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-11 07:50 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2017-04-11 11:43 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:16 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 10:21 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:48 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 23:58 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 00:55 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:07 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:29 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:51 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:50 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-04-12 12:55 +0200
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:17 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 06:03 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 04:30 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 08:44 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:01 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 13:33 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:05 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 10:27 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:02 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 20:10 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:16 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-05 12:01 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 10:39 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 18:53 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-05 11:33 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-12-05 22:22 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:29 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 11:32 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-07 19:06 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-06 04:27 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-06 10:24 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-30 13:41 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-30 15:15 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-12-01 09:54 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-01 04:42 -0600
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:09 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 08:32 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 10:36 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:41 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-12 13:25 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 14:13 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 17:45 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 05:53 -0700
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:34 -0400
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 11:48 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2016-11-29 14:24 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) john <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-29 21:27 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-29 18:15 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2016-11-30 10:03 +0000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 16:14 -0800
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-29 12:22 -1000
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-29 14:31 +0100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-02 23:05 +1100
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-12-03 01:58 -0500
Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-12-03 22:00 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-23 10:11 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 00:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-23 13:49 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:51 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-24 09:26 -1000
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 12:28 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 16:54 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 02:20 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-25 10:39 +0100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-11-22 04:17 -0600
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-22 10:38 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 13:05 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-29 15:23 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 07:46 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-23 21:59 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 08:12 +0200
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 22:22 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 21:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 01:06 -0500
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-25 11:56 +1100
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 23:14 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-24 18:11 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 18:58 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 20:01 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 14:08 -0800
Re: Yet another draw of rectangle lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 02:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o18ol6$ukh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52858 |
On 11/24/2016 7:54 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > Elizabeth Rather is an ignoramus --- ANS-Forth was informed by ignorance and driven by arrogance --- ANS-Forth made the entire Forth community appear to be ignorant of even the most rudimentary computer-science concepts, such as reentrancy, that every first-year programmer should be aware of (concepts that I was familiar with when I was still in high-school). The only ignoramus is someone who can't just get on with their life, but rather has to obsess over imagined slights and at every opportunity attack people who have done nothing to you. You are a sick individual. I don't know how you can keep a job or how you can even function in society if you display these same behaviors in the rest of your life. Will you never get over this and get on with your life? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 10:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o190ss$95f$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #52858 |
In article <44bc2a65-afbe-4822-bd1d-e7b40a072bc2@googlegroups.com>,
<hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:38:34 AM UTC-7, Albert van der Horst w=
>rote:
>> In article <8737iiaald.fsf@nightsong.com>,
>> Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >"HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>> >> The rect problem has been floating around since Leo Brodie posed it as
>> >> a 'worst case scenario' in Thinking Forth. You should drop him a line
>> >> with your solution :)
>> >
>> >I found the rectangle discussion (called [BOX] in the book) in the local
>> >variables section of chapter 7. He calls them local variables but
>> >they're actually globals since I guess Forth back then didn't have what
>> >we now call locals. Also, he starts with the 4-parameter line drawing
>> >primitive that takes both endpoints, then suggests some alternatives.
>>=20
>> They may have a lifetime of the program, and they may be accessible
>> from everywhere, but they are logically locals.
>> Because in Forth visibility may be manipulated separately from other
>> aspects, e.g. hiding them can be accomplished by manipulating the
>> headers in the wordlists, links or some such.
>>=20
>> >
>> >Basically he doesn't even try for a stack juggling solution. He
>> >suggests using variables and also suggests reorganizing the API in a few
>> >different ways.
>>=20
>> This way of using VARIABLE's is idiomatic Forth, as Elizabeth Rather
>> has pointed out, time and again.
>> There is school of dogmatic abhorrence of "global" parameters.
>> In order to be a good programmer it suffices to be aware of the
>> this advantages of global data.
This must be of course:
"
In order to be a good programmer it suffices to be aware of the
disadvantages of global data.
"
>
>Using global variables is idiotic --- this will not be idiomatic Straight F=
>orth.
I wouldn't put it that strongly but yes.
Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 04:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <f7idnVLudeKuhqnFnZ2dnUU7-dNj4p2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #52806 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > Is this really the language we want to entice schoolkids into > programming with?! :) There's nothing wrong with the language. It's being used inappropriately. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87inrf9x6p.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #52809 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: > There's nothing wrong with the language. It's being used > inappropriately. Aww, I bet you said the same thing about the C++ template metaprogramming implementation. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 13:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f449d28f-ac1b-4669-994f-4fbe4c72c61f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52806 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:03:00 AM UTC+2, Paul Rubin wrote: > "HAA" writes: > > MOVETO ( x y -- ) is a general-purpose function in the graphics > > package and requires the 2DUP here. I think you have hit on the > > definitive Forth definition for RECT. My original was 14 > > instructions, yours would make it 11. > > Heh, I'm sure others have done it better. And the LINE version is still > a pretty annoying challenge. I wrote a "brute force" version with the > idea of refactoring it for fewer operations after writing it; but > getting it working was time consuming and tiring enough that I put it > aside after it worked: > > : 4dup 2over 2over ; > > : LINE ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- ) 2>r swap . . 2r> swap . . cr ; > > \ & in stack comment means duplicate the input parameters > : r1 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- & x0 y0 x1 y0 ) 4dup drop over ; > > : r2 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- & x1 y0 x1 y1 ) > 4dup >r -rot nip over r> ; > > : r3 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- & x1 y1 x1 y0 ) > 4dup 2swap drop over ; > > : r4 ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- x0 y1 x0 y0 ) > nip ( x0 y0 y1 ) > >r over r> ( x0 y0 x0 y1 ) > -rot swap ; > > : rect r1 LINE r2 LINE r3 LINE r4 LINE ; > > : test cr clearstack 0 10 1 11 rect ; > > Is this really the language we want to entice schoolkids into > programming with?! :) Hi! What a nightmare! :) That is because you try to factor using knowledge from programming domain. But before that, maybe you should factor using knowledge from problem domain, in this case geometry. 'hypotenuse->cathetis' is such a factor that transform a hypotenuse to cathetis. In our case, rectangle diagonal is the hypotenuse and cathetis are the 2 concurrent edges of rectangle. That 'hypotenuse->cathetis' is stack reordering with meaning, that it is. Have a nice day, humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 15:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87pold7tw4.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #52834 |
humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> writes: > 'hypotenuse->cathetis' is such a factor that transform a hypotenuse to > cathetis. In our case, rectangle diagonal is the hypotenuse and > cathetis are the 2 concurrent edges of rectangle. Thanks, I didn't know that word before. Wikipedia spells it differently but I think this is what you meant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathetus Meanwhile I ran an exhaustive search program and found there is no 10 word solution. That search took about 13 hours on my i7-3770. Searching for 11 word solutions would take between 1 and 2 weeks. I'd rather try a better algorithm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 07:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <o15uoq$8p5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52806 |
On 22/11/2016 10:02, Paul Rubin wrote: ... > Is this really the language we want to entice schoolkids into > programming with?! :) Maybe! It encourages lateral thinking. For example, rephrasing the problem so that you have: : rect \ wide high x y -- ... ; makes it much easier to program in Forth. It's a good thing to encourage (especially, young) minds to restate problems in more practical ways. Just because we have been taught to think of a rectangle as (x0,y0),(x1,y1) does not mean that's the most appropriate way to think of it in any particular situation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 21:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87twax8llc.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #52839 |
Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> writes:
> For example, rephrasing the problem so that you have:
> : rect \ wide high x y --
> ... ;
> makes it much easier to program in Forth.
Yep. Thinking Forth suggested something like that. Here's my
implementation using the interface it described:
: MOVETO ( x y ) swap . . ." MOVETO" cr ;
: (dm) ( x caddr u -- ) 2>r . 2r> type cr ;
: DOWN ( x -- ) s" DOWN" (dm) ;
: UP ( x -- ) s" UP" (dm) ;
: RIGHT ( x -- ) s" RIGHT" (dm) ;
: LEFT ( x -- ) s" LEFT" (dm) ;
: rec ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- )
2dup MOVETO
rot - -rot -
2dup RIGHT DOWN LEFT UP ;
: test cr 1 1 5 8 rec ;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 08:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <o1609g$c8t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52840 |
On 24/11/2016 7:59, Paul Rubin wrote: > Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> writes: >> For example, rephrasing the problem so that you have: >> : rect \ wide high x y -- >> ... ; >> makes it much easier to program in Forth. > > Yep. Thinking Forth suggested something like that. Here's my > implementation using the interface it described: ... Here's mine: http://8th-dev.com/forum/index.php/topic,1118.0.html :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 22:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o15mc0$h0l$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52755 |
On 11/20/2016 5:03 AM, humptydumpty wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:46:54 AM UTC+2, HAA wrote: >> humptydumpty wrote: >>> Hi all! >>> >>> Hope to enjoy the reader :) >>> >>> >>> : hypotenuse->cathetis ( xy XY -- xy xY XY xY ;decomposition ) >>> >>> 2over drop over ( xy XY xY ) >>> 2swap 2over \ 2tuck >>> ; >>> >>> : rectangle ( x0y0 x1y1 -- ) >>> >>> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x0y0 ) >>> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x0y0 x1y0 ) >>> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 ) >>> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x1y1 ) >>> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 ) >>> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x0y1 x1y1 x0y1 ) >>> LINE ( x0y0 x0y1 ) >>> LINE >>> ; >>> >>> >>> >>> Have a nice day, >>> humptydumpty >> >> Nice but return stack version posted by Gerry circa 1/2015 gets my tick - >> 13 instructions (excluding initial move) in one definition compared to 16 >> split over two here. No tick for appealing to sensibilities of non-Forthers >> as they will never be pleased viz. WJ :) > > Hi! > > Thank you for appreciation ! > > I founded Gerry version: > > : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- ) > 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 ) > over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw > ; > > Is nice too! > Remarks: Is based on concept of current-point variable. > DRAW also is relative to current-point variable, and then > updates current-point position to input-point. > For number of operations, > DRAW ( xy -- ) should be based on LINE ( xy XY -- ), > and must update XY with xy. > > ... but I like factored version more: no variables, no locals, > no return-stack temporaries, just factoring by knowledge. Funny that you say "no variables, no locals". By using MOVE you have pushed the use of variables into a lower word that then has to use global storage to save the coordinates for a later DRAW command. Likewise the DRAW command has to save those coordinates for the next command. If DRAW is given the start and end coordinates the storage in the lower words is not required. But then you have to work harder to juggle the stack. No panacea here. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 21:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9599bad4-24e8-4a2f-bbe1-8e0cdd66ca32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52837 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:22:52 AM UTC+2, rickman wrote: > On 11/20/2016 5:03 AM, humptydumpty wrote: > > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:46:54 AM UTC+2, HAA wrote: > >> humptydumpty wrote: > >>> Hi all! > >>> > >>> Hope to enjoy the reader :) > >>> > >>> > >>> : hypotenuse->cathetis ( xy XY -- xy xY XY xY ;decomposition ) > >>> > >>> 2over drop over ( xy XY xY ) > >>> 2swap 2over \ 2tuck > >>> ; > >>> > >>> : rectangle ( x0y0 x1y1 -- ) > >>> > >>> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x0y0 ) > >>> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x0y0 x1y0 ) > >>> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 ) > >>> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x1y1 ) > >>> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 ) > >>> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x0y1 x1y1 x0y1 ) > >>> LINE ( x0y0 x0y1 ) > >>> LINE > >>> ; > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Have a nice day, > >>> humptydumpty > >> > >> Nice but return stack version posted by Gerry circa 1/2015 gets my tick - > >> 13 instructions (excluding initial move) in one definition compared to 16 > >> split over two here. No tick for appealing to sensibilities of non-Forthers > >> as they will never be pleased viz. WJ :) > > > > Hi! > > > > Thank you for appreciation ! > > > > I founded Gerry version: > > > > : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- ) > > 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 ) > > over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw > > ; > > > > Is nice too! > > Remarks: Is based on concept of current-point variable. > > DRAW also is relative to current-point variable, and then > > updates current-point position to input-point. > > For number of operations, > > DRAW ( xy -- ) should be based on LINE ( xy XY -- ), > > and must update XY with xy. > > > > ... but I like factored version more: no variables, no locals, > > no return-stack temporaries, just factoring by knowledge. > > Funny that you say "no variables, no locals". By using MOVE you have > pushed the use of variables into a lower word that then has to use > global storage to save the coordinates for a later DRAW command. > Likewise the DRAW command has to save those coordinates for the next > command. > > If DRAW is given the start and end coordinates the storage in the lower > words is not required. But then you have to work harder to juggle the > stack. > > No panacea here. > > -- > > Rick C Hi! You misunderstand posts. My solution is pair 'hypotenuse->cathetis' 'rectangle' words. That is factored version. 'draw-rectangle' is Gerry solution, not mine. Have a nice day, humptydumpty
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 01:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o15vv9$bin$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #52838 |
On 11/24/2016 12:14 AM, humptydumpty wrote: > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:22:52 AM UTC+2, rickman wrote: >> On 11/20/2016 5:03 AM, humptydumpty wrote: >>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:46:54 AM UTC+2, HAA wrote: >>>> humptydumpty wrote: >>>>> Hi all! >>>>> >>>>> Hope to enjoy the reader :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> : hypotenuse->cathetis ( xy XY -- xy xY XY xY ;decomposition ) >>>>> >>>>> 2over drop over ( xy XY xY ) >>>>> 2swap 2over \ 2tuck >>>>> ; >>>>> >>>>> : rectangle ( x0y0 x1y1 -- ) >>>>> >>>>> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x0y0 ) >>>>> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x0y0 x1y0 ) >>>>> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 ) >>>>> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x1y1 ) >>>>> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 ) >>>>> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x0y1 x1y1 x0y1 ) >>>>> LINE ( x0y0 x0y1 ) >>>>> LINE >>>>> ; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have a nice day, >>>>> humptydumpty >>>> >>>> Nice but return stack version posted by Gerry circa 1/2015 gets my tick - >>>> 13 instructions (excluding initial move) in one definition compared to 16 >>>> split over two here. No tick for appealing to sensibilities of non-Forthers >>>> as they will never be pleased viz. WJ :) >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> Thank you for appreciation ! >>> >>> I founded Gerry version: >>> >>> : draw-rectangle ( x0 y0 x1 y1 -- ) >>> 2over move rot >r >r ( -- x0 x1 ) ( R: -- y0 y1 ) >>> over r@ draw dup r> draw r@ draw r> draw >>> ; >>> >>> Is nice too! >>> Remarks: Is based on concept of current-point variable. >>> DRAW also is relative to current-point variable, and then >>> updates current-point position to input-point. >>> For number of operations, >>> DRAW ( xy -- ) should be based on LINE ( xy XY -- ), >>> and must update XY with xy. >>> >>> ... but I like factored version more: no variables, no locals, >>> no return-stack temporaries, just factoring by knowledge. >> >> Funny that you say "no variables, no locals". By using MOVE you have >> pushed the use of variables into a lower word that then has to use >> global storage to save the coordinates for a later DRAW command. >> Likewise the DRAW command has to save those coordinates for the next >> command. >> >> If DRAW is given the start and end coordinates the storage in the lower >> words is not required. But then you have to work harder to juggle the >> stack. >> >> No panacea here. >> >> -- >> >> Rick C > > Hi! > > You misunderstand posts. My solution is pair 'hypotenuse->cathetis' 'rectangle' words. That is factored version. > > 'draw-rectangle' is Gerry solution, not mine. I'm not addressing your post vs. anyone else's, I'm commenting on the trade off between burying the storage in variables in lower words which will require global variables, vs. juggling the stack. Call it factoring if you like. It doesn't matter if you encapsulate the stack juggling in a word "hypotenuse->cathetis" or not. It is still messy stack juggling. Try writing hypotenuse->cathetis, it's a PITA. BTW, don't you need *two* hypotenuse->cathetis words, one for each pair of adjacent sides? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 11:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o1827s$85s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #52838 |
humptydumpty wrote: > ... > You misunderstand posts. My solution is pair 'hypotenuse->cathetis' 'rectangle' words. > That is factored version. > > 'draw-rectangle' is Gerry solution, not mine. > > Have a nice day, > humptydumpty I understand you want to solve the RECT problem as originally presented but its use of ( x1 y1 x2 y2 ) LINE was flawed from the beginning. In a reasonably comprehensive graphics package MOVETO is essential. The next step is ( x y ) DRAW which then allows ( x1 y1 x2 y2 ) LINE. Using LINE to define RECT is what you do when there is no other choice. That your factor needs DROP immediately tells me there is something not optimum about the use of LINE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 23:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8beeada0-3d63-441e-8811-d7390d8ec907@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52738 |
On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 2:34:16 PM UTC-7, humptydumpty wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Hope to enjoy the reader :)
>
>
> : hypotenuse->cathetis ( xy XY -- xy xY XY xY ;decomposition )
>
> 2over drop over ( xy XY xY )
> 2swap 2over \ 2tuck
> ;
>
> : rectangle ( x0y0 x1y1 -- )
>
> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x0y0 )
> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x0y0 x1y0 )
> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 )
> 2over ( x0y0 x1y1 x1y0 x1y1 )
> LINE ( x0y0 x1y1 )
> hypotenuse->cathetis ( x0y0 x0y1 x1y1 x0y1 )
> LINE ( x0y0 x0y1 )
> LINE
> ;
>
>
>
> Have a nice day,
> humptydumpty
I don't recommend passing X and Y on the stack like you do. Use structs such as these:
0
w field pt.x
w field pt.y
constant pt
0
pt field line.a
pt field line.b
constant line
I didn't actually look at your code. Ahhhh --- difficult to get interested --- not my style of Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 18:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9dfad50e-7748-4f12-9f16-718a4cfab01a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52751 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't recommend passing X and Y on the stack like you do. Use structs such as these:
>
> 0
> w field pt.x
> w field pt.y
> constant pt
>
> 0
> pt field line.a
> pt field line.b
> constant line
I still think that it is best to use structs like this.
Theoretically, a rectangle could be defined like this:
0
pt field rec.a
pt field rec.b \ opposite corner from REC.A
constant rec
As a practical matter however, when would you ever have opposite corners of a rectangle? That is very awkward!
Here is a better definition:
line
w field rec.width \ the line goes down the middle of the rectangle and isn't drawn
constant rec
This would be a lot more useful for drawing pictures! The goal here is that you can write a Forth function that draws a picture, and it will be reasonably readable. Wasn't that pretty much the point of PostScript? How does PostScript represent a rectangle? I don't know PostScript very well (my only PostScript program was for the slide-rule) --- I'm not much interested in graphics --- if I were to get interested, I would start by learning PostScript, as those guys have already put some thought into the subject.
I doubt that the use of structs would be any less efficient or less readable than the use of local variables. Local variables are extremely inefficient in SwiftForth (the local-frame pointer is not in a register; it is in a user-variable) --- so the use of structs would likely be more efficient.
Even if structs are less efficient, who cares? In a graphical package, the OS calls that draw on the screen are going to be the most time-consuming part of the code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 18:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <64e9502b-8f05-4b23-bcd9-ce53b7b5b443@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52860 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:11:10 PM UTC-6, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 12:14:07 AM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I don't recommend passing X and Y on the stack like you do. Use structs such as these:
> >
> > 0
> > w field pt.x
> > w field pt.y
> > constant pt
> >
> > 0
> > pt field line.a
> > pt field line.b
> > constant line
>
> I still think that it is best to use structs like this.
>
> Theoretically, a rectangle could be defined like this:
>
> 0
> pt field rec.a
> pt field rec.b \ opposite corner from REC.A
> constant rec
>
> As a practical matter however, when would you ever have opposite corners of a rectangle? That is very awkward!
>
> Here is a better definition:
>
> line
> w field rec.width \ the line goes down the middle of the rectangle and isn't drawn
> constant rec
>
> This would be a lot more useful for drawing pictures! The goal here is that you can write a Forth function that draws a picture, and it will be reasonably readable. Wasn't that pretty much the point of PostScript? How does PostScript represent a rectangle? I don't know PostScript very well (my only PostScript program was for the slide-rule) --- I'm not much interested in graphics --- if I were to get interested, I would start by learning PostScript, as those guys have already put some thought into the subject.
Thanks for the hook! I was looking for a spot to jump in to this thread.
PostScript deals with rectangles a few different ways. In the original
Level 1 standard, the best way is probably with the *relative* operators
dx dy rmoveto -
dx dy rlineto -
So I'd write something like (I'm sure this can be improved:
% w h x y rect -
/rect {
gsave
translate % w h
0 1 index rlineto % w h
exch 0 rlineto % h
0 exch neg rlineto %
closepath
stroke
grestore
} def
Arranging the order of arguments and relative moves let me
get rid of the x y vars right away. Then the stack juggling
is much simpler.
Level 2 has builtin:
x y width height [matrix] rectstroke -
x y width height [matrix] rectfill -
where the matrix is optional.
PostScript organizes its dynamic namespace as a stack of dict
objects. The normal execution model guarantees that each
program starts with a "clean" system, just 3 dicts on the
dictstack
systemdict (read-only, contains all operators)
globaldict (writeable, for data that must persist across
save/restore boundaries)
userdict (writeable)
And it's fine to just put everything in userdict. More
complicated setups are required if you try to make a
postscript-driver (part of your graphics application
that produces ps output) that is DSC-compliant, that
is conforming to the Document Structuring Conventions.
Or when you're trying to make a re-usable component,
then you start to worry about name conflicts and putting
things in their proper little boxes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 20:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6af63ea7-3fdc-4e4f-a194-c500de0af4bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52861 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:59:00 PM UTC-6, luser droog wrote:
> % w h x y rect -
> /rect {
> gsave
> translate % w h
0 0 moveto
> 0 1 index rlineto % w h
> exch 0 rlineto % h
> 0 exch neg rlineto %
> closepath
> stroke
> grestore
> } def
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 14:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1fe1ae6e-960f-40de-a217-29fea2530571@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52738 |
: BOX // X1, Y1, X2, Y2, COLOR
4 PICK 4 PICK 4 PICK 7 PICK - 3 PICK HLINE
4 PICK 4 PICK 3 PICK 6 PICK - 3 PICK VLINE
4 PICK 2 PICK 4 PICK 7 PICK - 3 PICK HLINE
2 PICK 4 PICK 3 PICK 6 PICK - 3 PICK VLINE
DROP DROP DROP DROP DROP
;
100 150 200 180 0xFFFF BOX
: BOX // X1, Y1, X2, Y2, COLOR
// 4 3 2 1 0
FRAME{
ARG4 @ ARG3 @ ARG2 @ ARG4 @ - ARG0 @ HLINE
ARG4 @ ARG3 @ ARG1 @ ARG3 @ - ARG0 @ VLINE
ARG4 @ ARG1 @ ARG2 @ ARG4 @ - ARG0 @ HLINE
ARG2 @ ARG3 @ ARG1 @ ARG3 @ - ARG0 @ VLINE
}FRAME
;
300 150 400 180 0xFF00 BOX
: BOX
LOC[
QUAN X1 QUAN X2 QUAN Y1 QUAN Y2 QUAN COLOR
]LOC
TO COLOR TO Y2 TO X2 TO Y1 TO X1
X1 Y1 X2 X1 - COLOR HLINE
X1 Y1 Y2 Y1 - COLOR VLINE
X1 Y2 X2 X1 - COLOR HLINE
X2 Y1 Y2 Y1 - COLOR VLINE
;
500 150 600 180 0xFF0000 BOX
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38b17993-1609-4baf-948f-4ca833ba8807@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52738 |
The fame of Hugh comes from the possiblity he may had talked to Mrs Elizabeth Rather Conklin in real life and I would never ever become interested in any of his ideas until he stops his campaign of slander. Nobody distrust that he had cooperation problems at Forth Inc. Well, ANS-Forth do obviously has short comings as any standard do, but it's a a good standard and Forth community needs it.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web