Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jim <njbetts@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 189 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Wikipedia article on Forth jim <njbetts@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:05 -0800
The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:14 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-24 23:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-25 04:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-26 14:29 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 09:30 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 02:44 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 03:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 14:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:32 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 22:58 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 15:29 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 21:57 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 22:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 15:41 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 14:46 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-26 17:08 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-26 15:18 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:20 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 17:47 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 15:16 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 19:04 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 21:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 01:12 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:23 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:04 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-27 18:54 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:17 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 13:59 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 08:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 23:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-02-28 11:51 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 05:19 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:34 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:42 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 18:21 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-09 23:44 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-09 19:55 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-10 11:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-10 13:38 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:08 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-09 16:34 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-09 22:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-11 15:23 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 21:17 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 12:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 11:17 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 14:59 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-03-12 15:00 -0400
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-13 10:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 07:57 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-13 10:26 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-10 03:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-10 08:47 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-11 01:57 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 10:00 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 18:32 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 11:52 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:23 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:21 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 19:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-26 20:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 12:37 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 14:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 14:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 19:43 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 04:13 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 14:31 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-28 03:53 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-27 13:15 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 02:22 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-27 15:52 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-28 14:44 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-02-27 22:55 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-04 21:38 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 06:11 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:21 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 13:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-03-05 08:50 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 15:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 18:25 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 02:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:20 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 02:45 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 08:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 04:42 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 04:06 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-03-07 13:02 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 18:43 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 22:04 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:49 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 19:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:06 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:35 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 13:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-08 15:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-08 15:10 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-07 08:31 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:03 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-11 22:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:36 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-12 15:14 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:46 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-04 12:09 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth alex@rivadpm.com - 2017-03-05 15:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-05 22:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-04 07:23 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:11 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-04 07:25 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-05 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-05 04:27 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-05 18:24 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-07 18:16 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-07 11:35 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-07 17:13 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:10 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 03:38 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 10:18 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:41 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 16:50 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 09:56 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-12 14:31 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-15 23:54 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 19:00 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:27 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 22:13 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-16 10:20 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:42 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-12 19:39 -0700
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 05:48 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 01:26 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 05:33 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 04:33 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-06 17:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:10 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 11:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 15:22 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-06 12:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-07 02:51 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-07 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 14:50 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 12:06 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-07 16:00 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2017-03-07 13:18 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 00:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:04 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 09:52 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 05:09 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-08 14:05 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 12:05 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-08 03:00 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 22:53 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2017-03-11 23:19 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-03-11 17:01 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 10:12 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 07:02 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 12:43 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-12 12:28 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-03-12 16:29 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-03-12 16:16 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-03-12 21:42 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-08 19:13 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-03-08 01:33 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-03-10 10:37 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-04 18:35 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:12 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-27 13:13 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-27 23:28 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-02-28 07:49 +0000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 03:32 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-02-25 11:55 +1100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-02-24 22:14 -1000
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> - 2017-02-26 15:15 +0100
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-02-26 20:02 -0800
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-26 23:08 -0500
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-02-26 23:27 -0600
Re: The Wikipedia article on Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 01:21 -0500
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 02:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <81b41cb1-d3e1-4b75-aa86-07c542f58355@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55143 |
On Monday, 27 February 2017 02:13:32 UTC, HAA wrote: > Alex wrote: > > On 2/26/2017 03:29, HAA wrote: > > > Albert van der Horst wrote: > > >> In article <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com>, > > >> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> Who are the guardian angels? Anyone here? > > >>> My experience with Wikipedia has not been good. In my experience the subjects > > >>> in which I had knowledge and experience were 'guarded' by what can > > >>> only be described as zealots who think they know better than everyone > > >>> else. > > >> > > >> Please restrict to 72 char's. > > >> > > >> You mean you contributed something important, then it was subsequently > > >> deleted by a wikibobo? > > >> Yes that can be a problem, but let it not deter you. > > >> To be honest the times that happened to me, the contribution was a bit > > >> dubious. > > >> > > >> Groetjes Albert > > > > > > Scrutiny is needed else the result is ignorant or biased statements e.g. > > > > > > "... de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 ... were unified by ANSI in 1994" > > > > > > In mentioning standards as part of Forth's history, is it not incumbent to > > > mention their contentiousness in a language designed to be user-alterable. > > > > > > Chuck Moore: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to subsume all possible > > > opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard." > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Moore actually said: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to > > subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard. > > *I think ANS Forth will become the dominant dialect.*" (my emphasis). > > > > And: "I think an ANSI standard is relevant now, so that you can have a > > program written on one personal computer and run it on another... The > > standard as a documentation and communication language is a laudable > > goal...a useful tool that we've never had." > > It was a farewell speech given in apology for having walked out on the ANS TC. > He made it as gracious as possible. In the years since Chuck hasn't minced > words. ANS was the latest but it's all standards he has a problem with: > > "I distrust formal representations. For example, the ANSII Forth standard does > not describe Forth, but a language with the same name." > > The Wikipedia article would have everyone believe otherwise. Reading the speech/document, I come away with the impression that as much as I admire him, and as much as he seems to be a very pleasant person on a personal level, I think he must have been a very difficult person to work with!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 15:52 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <LMudnV1-mIhJSinFnZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55167 |
On 2/27/17 12:22 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Monday, 27 February 2017 02:13:32 UTC, HAA wrote: >> Alex wrote: >>> On 2/26/2017 03:29, HAA wrote: >>>> Albert van der Horst wrote: >>>>> In article <80bac9cc-dba0-430a-9a09-9d478e1e8f9f@googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Who are the guardian angels? Anyone here? >>>>>> My experience with Wikipedia has not been good. In my experience the subjects >>>>>> in which I had knowledge and experience were 'guarded' by what can >>>>>> only be described as zealots who think they know better than everyone >>>>>> else. >>>>> >>>>> Please restrict to 72 char's. >>>>> >>>>> You mean you contributed something important, then it was subsequently >>>>> deleted by a wikibobo? >>>>> Yes that can be a problem, but let it not deter you. >>>>> To be honest the times that happened to me, the contribution was a bit >>>>> dubious. >>>>> >>>>> Groetjes Albert >>>> >>>> Scrutiny is needed else the result is ignorant or biased statements e.g. >>>> >>>> "... de facto standards FORTH-79 and FORTH-83 ... were unified by ANSI in 1994" >>>> >>>> In mentioning standards as part of Forth's history, is it not incumbent to >>>> mention their contentiousness in a language designed to be user-alterable. >>>> >>>> Chuck Moore: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to subsume all possible >>>> opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard." >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Chuck Moore actually said: "It is impossible for one version of Forth to >>> subsume all possible opportunities. Forth is larger than the standard. >>> *I think ANS Forth will become the dominant dialect.*" (my emphasis). >>> >>> And: "I think an ANSI standard is relevant now, so that you can have a >>> program written on one personal computer and run it on another... The >>> standard as a documentation and communication language is a laudable >>> goal...a useful tool that we've never had." >> >> It was a farewell speech given in apology for having walked out on the ANS TC. >> He made it as gracious as possible. In the years since Chuck hasn't minced >> words. ANS was the latest but it's all standards he has a problem with: >> >> "I distrust formal representations. For example, the ANSII Forth standard does >> not describe Forth, but a language with the same name." >> >> The Wikipedia article would have everyone believe otherwise. > > Reading the speech/document, I come away with the impression that as much > as I admire him, and as much as he seems to be a very pleasant person on > a personal level, I think he must have been a very difficult person to work > with! I suspect all geniuses are, to some extent. Indeed, Chuck was wonderful in some respects and difficult in others. He had a unique POV. He could never bring himself to reuse any code, for example: he treasured his past code (e.g., math functions, graphics package, etc.) but continuously rewrote them. Most of us couldn't live/work that way. And we very much want to be able to share code and reuse it. So, there's no way that any standard could ever work for Chuck, but that doesn't mean a standard isn't extremely valuable for the Forth community that wants to reuse and share code, and for managers who want a reasonably stable language for their products. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 14:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o92rio$1rhf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55223 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > ... > So, there's no way that any standard could ever work for Chuck, but that > doesn't mean a standard isn't extremely valuable for the Forth community > that wants to reuse and share code, and for managers who want a > reasonably stable language for their products. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth Forth has had many years to find out whether standards work. Does it even have a standard when vendors on the current TC refuse to implement it? You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door demanding 200x be implemented. I'd expect them to demand Forth Inc implement f/p functions according to ANS. Many years have passed and nothing has changed. If the extent of 'the Forth community' is comp.lang.forth inhabitants whom you regularly chastise for wasting their time and show no interest in responding to 200x CFV's, then I'd say 'the Forth community' doesn't want a standard. It appears quite content to talk Forth and engage in 'pie in the sky' dreaming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 22:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87wpcaiz3i.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #55224 |
"HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a > standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door > demanding 200x be implemented. Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not that many users are really clamoring for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 21:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9e5ai$qgs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55230 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > > You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a > > standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door > > demanding 200x be implemented. > > Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community > satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a > refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? > > The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow > C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not > that many users are really clamoring for it. You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to indicate it is a draft, so I assume it is an official standard and supporters are using it now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 06:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9e78i$5a0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55402 |
On 3/4/2017 5:38 AM, HAA wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: >>> You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a >>> standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door >>> demanding 200x be implemented. >> >> Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community >> satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a >> refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? >> >> The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow >> C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not >> that many users are really clamoring for it. > > You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay > with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. > > There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to indicate it is a > draft, so I assume it is an official standard and supporters are using it now. Is it the one with this on the title page? "Notice: Status of this Document This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may modify this document during the course of its work." -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 12:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar4.132137@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55403 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>Is it the one with this on the title page?
>
>"Notice: Status of this Document
>This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such,
>this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may
>modify this document during the course of its work."
That may explain the confusion. I think that's there for some reason
having to do with ANSI. Nonetheless, the document
<http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf> is final as far as
the committee is concerned, and we are working on the next standard
after Forth-2012.
- 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9f0qo$864$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55405 |
On 3/4/2017 7:21 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> Is it the one with this on the title page? >> >> "Notice: Status of this Document >> This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, >> this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may >> modify this document during the course of its work." > > That may explain the confusion. I think that's there for some reason > having to do with ANSI. Nonetheless, the document > <http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf> is final as far as > the committee is concerned, and we are working on the next standard > after Forth-2012. Certainly I am not on the committee, but my understanding is this document is *not* the final draft. There are supposed to be some very minor formatting issues that were straightened out in the final release. So while the Forth-2012 standard may be finalized, this is not the *exact* document that effort produced. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 08:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <92e0368a-04e9-42e9-b7e7-3501b049ca90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55405 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 12:29:28 PM UTC, Anton Ertl wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > >Is it the one with this on the title page? > > > >"Notice: Status of this Document > >This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, > >this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may > >modify this document during the course of its work." > > That may explain the confusion. I think that's there for some reason > having to do with ANSI. Nonetheless, the document > <http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf> is final as far as > the committee is concerned, and we are working on the next standard > after Forth-2012. > > - 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/ Anton, are some the non-included parts documented at https://forth-standard.org/standard/words
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar8.161236@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55427 |
JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
>On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 12:29:28 PM UTC, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> <http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf> is final as far as
>> the committee is concerned, and we are working on the next standard
>> after Forth-2012.
...
>Anton, are some the non-included parts documented at https://forth-standard.org/standard/words
I am not sure what you are referring to.
1) The stuff that we have changed/added after Forth-2012 is not at the
https://forth-standard.org/standard/words>. You can find it at
<http://www.forth200x.org/>. At some point we will make another
release that will include the things we will have decided by that
time.
2) The Forth-2012 document in PDF form
<http://www.forth200x.org/documents/forth-2012.pdf> does not include
the reference implementations and tests; these parts are included in
<https://forth-standard.org/standard/words>.
- 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 | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 18:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9gf2e$c0l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55403 |
rickman wrote: > On 3/4/2017 5:38 AM, HAA wrote: > > Paul Rubin wrote: > >> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > >>> You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a > >>> standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door > >>> demanding 200x be implemented. > >> > >> Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community > >> satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a > >> refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? > >> > >> The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow > >> C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not > >> that many users are really clamoring for it. > > > > You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay > > with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. > > > > There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to indicate it is a > > draft, so I assume it is an official standard and supporters are using it now. > > Is it the one with this on the title page? > > "Notice: Status of this Document > This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, > this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may > modify this document during the course of its work." It's not present on the version I have which just has title and release date (10 Nov 2014) on title page. I searched the pdf for the word "draft" before posting just to make sure. None was found. I assume the notice you quote was added sometime later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 02:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9gf6o$as2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55420 |
On 3/5/2017 2:25 AM, HAA wrote: > rickman wrote: >> On 3/4/2017 5:38 AM, HAA wrote: >>> Paul Rubin wrote: >>>> "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: >>>>> You talk about 'what the Forth community wants'. If it wanted a >>>>> standard then I'd expect Forth Inc users to be banging on the door >>>>> demanding 200x be implemented. >>>> >>>> Is 200x a standard rather than a draft of one? Is the Forth community >>>> satisfied that it already has a standard (ANS) with 200x being a >>>> refinement, like more recent iterations of the C standard? >>>> >>>> The C standard is important and influential, but people mostly follow >>>> C99 even though C11 is a thing. There's an update in the works but not >>>> that many users are really clamoring for it. >>> >>> You're suggesting there are Standard supporters who are happy to stay >>> with ANS? Maybe, but it's hard finding anyone to admit it. >>> >>> There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to indicate it is a >>> draft, so I assume it is an official standard and supporters are using it now. >> >> Is it the one with this on the title page? >> >> "Notice: Status of this Document >> This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, >> this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may >> modify this document during the course of its work." > > It's not present on the version I have which just has title and release date > (10 Nov 2014) on title page. I searched the pdf for the word "draft" before > posting just to make sure. None was found. I assume the notice you quote > was added sometime later. A 2012 standard released in 2014? This document is dated 13 th November, 2013. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 18:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9lmqs$16ii$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55421 |
rickman wrote: > On 3/5/2017 2:25 AM, HAA wrote: > > rickman wrote: > >> On 3/4/2017 5:38 AM, HAA wrote: > >>> ... > >>> There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to indicate it is a > >>> draft, so I assume it is an official standard and supporters are using it now. > >> > >> Is it the one with this on the title page? > >> > >> "Notice: Status of this Document > >> This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, > >> this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may > >> modify this document during the course of its work." > > > > It's not present on the version I have which just has title and release date > > (10 Nov 2014) on title page. I searched the pdf for the word "draft" before > > posting just to make sure. None was found. I assume the notice you quote > > was added sometime later. > > A 2012 standard released in 2014? This document is dated 13 th > November, 2013. The current pdf says 10 Nov 2014. Either way, release date is unimportant. What will interest standard supporters is whether there exists a 'Forth 2012 Standard' they may use and quote. The notice above which appears on the current pdf would effectively exclude it as a standard. rickman wrote: > On 3/5/2017 3:10 AM, HAA wrote: > > ... > > Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look > > at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions > > Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. > > Maybe because no one cares??? 200x may care because the political reality is that without Forth Inc behind it, they won't have a standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 02:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9lo9d$lth$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55483 |
On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote: > rickman wrote: >> On 3/5/2017 2:25 AM, HAA wrote: >>> rickman wrote: >>>> On 3/4/2017 5:38 AM, HAA wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> There's a pdf entitled "Forth Standard 2012". Nothing to indicate it is a >>>>> draft, so I assume it is an official standard and supporters are using it now. >>>> >>>> Is it the one with this on the title page? >>>> >>>> "Notice: Status of this Document >>>> This is a draft proposed Standard to replace ANSI X3.215-1994. As such, >>>> this is not a completed standard. The Standardisation Committee may >>>> modify this document during the course of its work." >>> >>> It's not present on the version I have which just has title and release date >>> (10 Nov 2014) on title page. I searched the pdf for the word "draft" before >>> posting just to make sure. None was found. I assume the notice you quote >>> was added sometime later. >> >> A 2012 standard released in 2014? This document is dated 13 th >> November, 2013. > > The current pdf says 10 Nov 2014. Either way, release date is unimportant. > What will interest standard supporters is whether there exists a 'Forth 2012 > Standard' they may use and quote. The notice above which appears on the > current pdf would effectively exclude it as a standard. That's funny, it works for me. > rickman wrote: >> On 3/5/2017 3:10 AM, HAA wrote: >>> ... >>> Asking is pointless when someone doesn't want to answer. Better to look >>> at what they do (or in this case, don't). I've suggested on several occasions >>> Forth Inc is not committed to 200x and nobody has challenged it. >> >> Maybe because no one cares??? > > 200x may care because the political reality is that without Forth Inc behind it, > they won't have a standard. Why? Without Forth Inc involved it will be a standard just the same. Are you suggesting no one but Forth Inc cares enough to be involved? IEEE doesn't care if Forth, Inc is involved I think. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 08:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar7.095451@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55484 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> A 2012 standard released in 2014?
At some point we say that we do a release. That point was in 2012.
There were still some things added in 2013, then there was the public
review period (my guess is that your document from 2013 was the
version for the public review), and in 2014 the release was finished.
Maybe we should use release numbers (like Java) that are not reminding
anybody of years. E.g., the next release could be Forth 6.0, or so:-).
>> 200x may care because the political reality is that without Forth Inc behind it,
>> they won't have a standard.
>
>Why? Without Forth Inc involved it will be a standard just the same.
HAA has a valid point: The value of a standard is in how widely it is
accepted; in particular, the value of a standard to programmers is in
how widely systems implement it.
Anyway, when I asked Leon Wagner about this, he wrote that SwiftForth
will implement more Forth-2012 features in time. I guess if more
Forth, Inc. customers asked for these features, that might speed up
the process.
- 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 04:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9lv3v$ar1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55487 |
On 3/7/2017 3:54 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote: >>> rickman wrote: >>>> A 2012 standard released in 2014? > > At some point we say that we do a release. That point was in 2012. > There were still some things added in 2013, then there was the public > review period (my guess is that your document from 2013 was the > version for the public review), and in 2014 the release was finished. > > Maybe we should use release numbers (like Java) that are not reminding > anybody of years. E.g., the next release could be Forth 6.0, or so:-). > >>> 200x may care because the political reality is that without Forth Inc behind it, >>> they won't have a standard. >> >> Why? Without Forth Inc involved it will be a standard just the same. > > HAA has a valid point: The value of a standard is in how widely it is > accepted; in particular, the value of a standard to programmers is in > how widely systems implement it. > > Anyway, when I asked Leon Wagner about this, he wrote that SwiftForth > will implement more Forth-2012 features in time. I guess if more > Forth, Inc. customers asked for these features, that might speed up > the process. I think it is better adopted than VHDL-2008 where I don't think any vendors implement the full standard still. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 04:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <hOudnQPeUOKDGyPFnZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55489 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/7/2017 3:54 AM, Anton Ertl wrote: >> >> Anyway, when I asked Leon Wagner about this, he wrote that SwiftForth >> will implement more Forth-2012 features in time. I guess if more >> Forth, Inc. customers asked for these features, that might speed up >> the process. > > I think it is better adopted than VHDL-2008 where I don't think any > vendors implement the full standard still. And sometimes a feature which no-one wants gets included in a standard: for example, export in C++98. The right thing to do then is not support it and campaign for it to be removed. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@nothishetnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 13:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <58bea177$0$4232$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #55487 |
On 07/03/17 09:54, Anton Ertl wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote: >>> rickman wrote: >>>> A 2012 standard released in 2014? > > At some point we say that we do a release. That point was in 2012. > There were still some things added in 2013, then there was the public > review period (my guess is that your document from 2013 was the > version for the public review), and in 2014 the release was finished. > > Maybe we should use release numbers (like Java) that are not reminding > anybody of years. E.g., the next release could be Forth 6.0, or so:-). > >>> 200x may care because the political reality is that without Forth Inc behind it, >>> they won't have a standard. >> >> Why? Without Forth Inc involved it will be a standard just the same. > > HAA has a valid point: The value of a standard is in how widely it is > accepted; in particular, the value of a standard to programmers is in > how widely systems implement it. > > Anyway, when I asked Leon Wagner about this, he wrote that SwiftForth > will implement more Forth-2012 features in time. I guess if more > Forth, Inc. customers asked for these features, that might speed up > the process. As a Forth, Inc. customer, and very regular SwiftForth user, they're the last things I would request. Can think of much more pressing matters to spend their precious time, energy, expertise and skills on. Similar for VFX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 18:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9od9f$3cv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55484 |
rickman wrote: > On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote: > > ... > > The current pdf says 10 Nov 2014. Either way, release date is unimportant. > > What will interest standard supporters is whether there exists a 'Forth 2012 > > Standard' they may use and quote. The notice above which appears on the > > current pdf would effectively exclude it as a standard. > > That's funny, it works for me. It won't work for those expecting a standard. By definition a standard is frozen and not subject to change. That's the point of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 22:04 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <FIqdnUOtOMmSJiLFnZ2dnUU7-UHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55524 |
On 3/7/17 9:43 PM, HAA wrote: > rickman wrote: >> On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote: >>> ... >>> The current pdf says 10 Nov 2014. Either way, release date is unimportant. >>> What will interest standard supporters is whether there exists a 'Forth 2012 >>> Standard' they may use and quote. The notice above which appears on the >>> current pdf would effectively exclude it as a standard. >> >> That's funny, it works for me. > > It won't work for those expecting a standard. By definition a standard is frozen > and not subject to change. That's the point of them. Not according to ANSI, which *requires* that standards be either reaffirmed or modified at least every 5 years. I think other standards organizations have similar rules. But, technically, the 200x group should call Forth 2012 the doc released under that name, and if there are any mods the result should be Draft 20xx Standard. That way people can say "2012 compatible" and mean something. Cheers, Elizabeth -- Elizabeth R. Conklin FORTH, Inc. 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web