Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #53228 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nathan Schulzke <nschulzke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-09 09:25 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-07 15:37 +0000 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 171 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Nathan Schulzke <nschulzke@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 09:25 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Nathan Schulzke <nschulzke@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 09:30 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set trans <transfire@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:23 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Nathan Schulzke <nschulzke@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 16:37 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 17:01 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Nathan Schulzke <nschulzke@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-01 21:40 -0500
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-01 21:06 -1000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-03 17:22 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2017-01-04 10:09 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set john <anon@example.com> - 2017-01-04 11:59 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-04 23:58 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-04 20:06 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-05 04:12 -0600
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-05 12:43 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-05 16:38 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-05 19:17 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-05 18:26 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-06 01:56 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-07 15:53 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-07 18:20 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-08 16:33 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 20:02 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-09 20:22 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-09 08:04 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-09 17:04 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-09 20:22 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-10 01:41 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-09 22:16 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 09:44 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-10 15:19 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 15:24 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 15:35 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-10 22:12 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 22:42 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-11 00:23 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 23:35 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-10 23:38 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-11 10:32 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-11 12:52 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-11 13:23 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-11 06:08 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-11 14:39 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2017-01-11 23:00 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-12 13:55 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-12 14:06 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 06:29 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-13 14:52 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-14 12:23 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-12 15:47 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-12 15:09 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-12 20:23 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-13 03:45 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-13 02:55 -0600
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-13 14:29 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Bernd Linsel <bl1@gmx.com> - 2017-01-13 16:11 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-13 17:26 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-13 17:27 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-13 17:01 +0000
nt=xt? (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-14 15:35 +0000
Re: nt=xt? (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) stephen@mpeforth.com - 2017-01-14 13:58 -0800
Re: nt=xt? (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 14:52 -0800
Re: nt=xt? (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-15 14:00 +0000
Re: nt=xt? (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-15 16:51 +0100
Re: nt=xt? (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-15 16:04 +0000
Re: nt=xt? (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-15 13:47 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-14 12:39 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 22:14 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-14 13:45 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2017-01-14 08:51 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-14 09:23 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-14 18:02 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2017-01-09 23:42 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 09:36 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 03:55 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 06:40 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-05 12:45 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 08:19 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-06 17:57 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set mhx@iae.nl - 2017-01-08 01:34 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set john <anon@example.com> - 2017-01-08 17:08 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 14:52 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-09 14:56 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 13:13 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-06 06:58 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-06 09:32 -0600
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-06 09:11 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-06 12:41 -0600
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-06 21:31 -1000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-07 13:28 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-01-07 23:00 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-07 14:37 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 00:06 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-07 18:50 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 14:28 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 19:34 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-09 06:27 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-10 00:08 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-10 10:01 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-10 13:12 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set stephen@mpeforth.com - 2017-01-08 07:23 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-08 19:41 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-09 17:41 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-01-07 18:56 -1000
TO implementation (was: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-07 14:02 +0000
Re: TO implementation Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-07 10:51 -0600
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-08 15:27 +0000
Re: TO implementation Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-08 13:36 -0600
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-09 18:20 +0000
Re: TO implementation Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-10 03:56 -0600
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-15 15:15 +0000
Re: TO implementation Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-15 13:34 -0600
Re: TO implementation hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-15 14:04 -0800
Re: TO implementation stephen@mpeforth.com - 2017-01-15 14:24 -0800
Re: TO implementation hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-15 15:42 -0800
Re: TO implementation hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-15 15:56 -0800
Re: TO implementation awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-16 14:25 +0100
Re: TO implementation hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-16 11:30 -0800
Re: TO implementation awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-17 02:00 +0100
Re: TO implementation albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-17 12:59 +0100
Re: TO implementation awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-17 14:38 +0100
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-17 15:47 +0000
Re: TO implementation hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-17 10:24 -0800
Re: TO implementation hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-16 17:02 -0800
Re: TO implementation awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-17 06:00 +0100
Re: TO implementation Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-15 22:19 -0500
Re: TO implementation Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-16 08:57 -0600
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-19 11:26 +0000
Re: TO implementation Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-19 20:49 -0500
Re: TO implementation minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-20 00:27 -0800
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-20 12:20 +0000
Re: TO implementation Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-01-26 22:42 -0500
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-27 08:33 +0000
Re: TO implementation minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-27 03:59 -0800
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-19 11:40 +0000
Re: TO implementation Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-19 05:55 -0600
Re: TO implementation anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-19 14:46 +0000
Re: TO implementation Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-19 11:03 -0600
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-06 20:22 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-01-07 03:54 -0600
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-07 13:51 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-07 18:50 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set mhx@iae.nl - 2017-01-08 02:05 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-06 17:41 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-06 09:15 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-06 18:40 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-06 20:25 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-07 14:55 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-07 18:55 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-08 01:25 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 02:17 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set mhx@iae.nl - 2017-01-08 01:53 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 17:03 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 17:51 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 18:30 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-08 10:51 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 20:06 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-07 15:31 +0000
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-07 18:20 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-07 18:56 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-01-08 01:26 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2017-01-08 02:06 +0100
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-01-06 17:23 -0800
Re: Ideal Stack Machine Instruction Set anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-01-07 15:37 +0000
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 18:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mzjoha.1o1v9rj18yl5ubN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #53857 |
Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> wrote: > > It still had its own pitfalls, because still you need to choose the > > properly typed arguments and type-specific operators (d+, f+, ..) with > > possibility of a mismatch. > > Simplistic example: > > > > FVALUE fu > > 2 TO fu \ will use a value from f-stack instead of 2 > > Nothing different from: > > FVARIABLE foo > 2 foo f! > > In both cases you have to write '2e' or '2e0' instead of '2'. Shouldn't have written "its own" pitfalls. More correct: It doesn't remove all pitfalls. Different example: a b d+ to c You still have to look up all definitions (a, b, and c) to check whether this does what it looks like it's doing. What is assured is that a store operation will be chosen which matches c, but that's it(?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 10:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87shot1j2k.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #53855 |
awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes: > FVALUE fu > 2 TO fu \ will use a value from f-stack instead of 2 That happens all the time with floating arithmetic as well (using + instead of f+ etc).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mzjuc5.1wife253zmsw3N%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #53864 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes: > > FVALUE fu > > 2 TO fu \ will use a value from f-stack instead of 2 > > That happens all the time with floating arithmetic as well (using + > instead of f+ etc). Sure. My point was that the TO mechanism doesn't solve this, but indeed hides it behind the overloaded TO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Jan7.163149@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #53787 |
awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes:
[TO]
>Using it for doubles or floats on the other hand *is* forbidden (in the
>sense that ambiguous=forbidden).
Forth-2012 has optional words 2VALUE and FVALUE, and of course TO
works on children of these words.
http://forth-standard.org/standard/double/TwoVALUE
http://forth-standard.org/standard/float/FVALUE
http://forth-standard.org/standard/core/TO
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mzhtsc.prmzeo12p4ih7N%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #53810 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes: > [TO] > >Using it for doubles or floats on the other hand *is* forbidden (in the > >sense that ambiguous=forbidden). > > Forth-2012 has optional words 2VALUE and FVALUE, and of course TO > works on children of these words. Still have to read up on f2012 - i only were talking about the official ans std of '94. Personally i prefer having separate words 2TO and FTO, because (a) it's only two more words, and (b) it doesn't add needless complexity (users of 2TO and FTO know what kind of data they want to store, so TO mustn't figure that out).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 18:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o4ra42$dqr$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #53815 |
In article <1mzhtsc.prmzeo12p4ih7N%awegel@arcor.de>, Alexander Wegel <awegel@arcor.de> wrote: >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes: >> [TO] >> >Using it for doubles or floats on the other hand *is* forbidden (in the >> >sense that ambiguous=forbidden). >> >> Forth-2012 has optional words 2VALUE and FVALUE, and of course TO >> works on children of these words. > >Still have to read up on f2012 - i only were talking about the official >ans std of '94. > >Personally i prefer having separate words 2TO and FTO, because (a) it's >only two more words, and (b) it doesn't add needless complexity (users >of 2TO and FTO know what kind of data they want to store, so TO mustn't >figure that out). Oh boy! 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 | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mzhwwp.j57d06ubyoszN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #53818 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <1mzhtsc.prmzeo12p4ih7N%awegel@arcor.de>, > Alexander Wegel <awegel@arcor.de> wrote: > >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > > >> awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes: > >> [TO] > >> >Using it for doubles or floats on the other hand *is* forbidden (in the > >> >sense that ambiguous=forbidden). > >> > >> Forth-2012 has optional words 2VALUE and FVALUE, and of course TO > >> works on children of these words. > > > >Still have to read up on f2012 - i only were talking about the official > >ans std of '94. > > > >Personally i prefer having separate words 2TO and FTO, because (a) it's > >only two more words, and (b) it doesn't add needless complexity (users > >of 2TO and FTO know what kind of data they want to store, so TO mustn't > >figure that out). > > Oh boy! Does that mean you disagree? If so, why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 01:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o4s107$g4s$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #53820 |
In article <1mzhwwp.j57d06ubyoszN%awegel@arcor.de>, Alexander Wegel <awegel@arcor.de> wrote: >Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> In article <1mzhtsc.prmzeo12p4ih7N%awegel@arcor.de>, >> Alexander Wegel <awegel@arcor.de> wrote: >> >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> > >> >> awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes: >> >> [TO] >> >> >Using it for doubles or floats on the other hand *is* forbidden (in the >> >> >sense that ambiguous=forbidden). >> >> >> >> Forth-2012 has optional words 2VALUE and FVALUE, and of course TO >> >> works on children of these words. >> > >> >Still have to read up on f2012 - i only were talking about the official >> >ans std of '94. >> > >> >Personally i prefer having separate words 2TO and FTO, because (a) it's >> >only two more words, and (b) it doesn't add needless complexity (users >> >of 2TO and FTO know what kind of data they want to store, so TO mustn't >> >figure that out). >> >> Oh boy! > >Does that mean you disagree? If so, why? I've no stake in value's and the to mechanism. It was just a spontaneous reaction. 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 | awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-08 02:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1mzif7d.1i8e8ae1x1w1r7N%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #53831 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <1mzhwwp.j57d06ubyoszN%awegel@arcor.de>, > Alexander Wegel <awegel@arcor.de> wrote: > >Albert van der Horst <albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > >> In article <1mzhtsc.prmzeo12p4ih7N%awegel@arcor.de>, > >> Alexander Wegel <awegel@arcor.de> wrote: > >> >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > >> > > >> >> awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes: > >> >> [TO] > >> >> >Using it for doubles or floats on the other hand *is* forbidden (in the > >> >> >sense that ambiguous=forbidden). > >> >> > >> >> Forth-2012 has optional words 2VALUE and FVALUE, and of course TO > >> >> works on children of these words. > >> > > >> >Still have to read up on f2012 - i only were talking about the official > >> >ans std of '94. > >> > > >> >Personally i prefer having separate words 2TO and FTO, because (a) it's > >> >only two more words, and (b) it doesn't add needless complexity (users > >> >of 2TO and FTO know what kind of data they want to store, so TO mustn't > >> >figure that out). > >> > >> Oh boy! > > > >Does that mean you disagree? If so, why? > > I've no stake in value's and the to mechanism. > It was just a spontaneous reaction. Oh boy! ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-06 17:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ff5c97c-54a9-4aa6-a16c-600731abd041@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #53779 |
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 7:58:31 AM UTC-7, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2017 01:56:20 UTC+1 schrieb Alexander Wegel:
> > Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> >
> > > awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) writes:
> > > >Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> the following rules
> > > >> out a text interpreter as a standard program more clearly:
> > > >>
> > > >> |4.1.2 Ambiguous conditions
> > > >> |
> > > >> |attempting to obtain the execution token, (e.g., with 6.1.0070 ',
> > > >> |6.1.1550 FIND, etc. of a definition with undefined interpretation
> > > >> |semantics;
> > > >
> > > >I think FIND differs from ' and ['] in that it isn't limited to words
> > > >with interpretation semantics
> > >
> > > Yes, in practice it works that way;
> > > the extreme case is a cmForth-like
> > > system where IF and ";" are only FINDable in compile state; there FIND
> > > will return 0 in interpretation state, and the user-defined text
> > > interpreter will report "IF undefined" or somesuch, but that will be
> > > pretty much the same as the behaviour of the system-defined text
> > > interpreter.
> >
> > I had such a system too (ansified pocketforth derivative).
> >
> > > Anyway, the normative text of Forth-94/2012 makes this ambiguous, so
> > > by the text of the standard a standard program must not FIND the
> > > system's IF (not even in compile state).
> >
> > I think the rationale behind these restrictions becomes clear in
> > D.6.7 Immediacy, where there is an explanation why ' and ['] are not
> > permitted with compiling words:
> > They don't return immediacy information, just a bare execution token.
> > (FIND which doesn't have that shortcoming isn't ruled out there.)
> >
> > The good thing is: I'm not attempting to "obtain an execution token",
> > but to "obtain an execution-token + immediacy-flag pair", so the
> > paragraph in 4.1.2 doesn't apply. It even makes sense this way ;D
> >
> > BTW: Find is ruled out in 4.1.2 in a rather generic list (starting with
> > E.g., ending with etc.) while there are only ~4 candidate words in the
> > whole standard (' ['] FIND SEARCH-WORDLIST) - it might be normative, but
> > seems a bit huh-hasty or imprecise to me.
> >
> > Alex W.
>
> It's the same old story ad nauseam, to repair Forth's traditional compiler directives. And it is getting worse with each invention of new overloadings of TO. Already TO is overloaded 4 times: singles, doubles, floats and locals. Overloading cries for boxed values and OO, but....
>
> What should FIND TO return then? Forbidding it is a very poor excuse IMO.
I won't have TO or VALUE in Straight Forth. Local variables are like global variables in that they return an address which can then be given to @ or ! or whatever.
ANS-Forth has a lot of redundancy. We have both VALUE and VARIABLE which do essentially the same thing, but differently. We have both BEGIN and DO which do essentially the same thing, but differently. This is a big part of why people have difficulty in learning ANS-Forth. Straight Forth is much smaller --- it doesn't have redundancy --- it has only one way to do anything.
Some people may say that this is confining --- I say that simplification is a good thing --- ANS-Forth is gratuitously complicated, for no purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-07 15:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Jan7.163726@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #53779 |
minforth@arcor.de writes:
[FIND]
>It's the same old story ad nauseam, to repair Forth's traditional compiler =
>directives. And it is getting worse with each invention of new overloadings=
> of TO. Already TO is overloaded 4 times: singles, doubles, floats and loca=
>ls.
Actually, these are independent issues. The problems of parsing words
also show up in S", IS, and ACTION-OF, which have no such overloading
going on.
> Overloading cries for boxed values and OO, but....
Well, the targets of TO are boxed in the form of words; Forth-2012
describes TO in an object-oriented fashion, and the development
version of Gforth implements it in an object-oriented fashion. I am
relatively happy with both; no "but".
>What should FIND TO return then? Forbidding it is a very poor excuse IMO.
In interpretation state it should return an xt that, when executed in
interpretation state, performs the interpretation semantics of TO.
In compilation state it should return an xt/flag combination that,
when EXECUTEd or COMPILE,d (according to the flag) in compilation
state, performs the compilation semantics of TO.
Just like what should happen with every other word.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web