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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 19:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9ogfe$96j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55525 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 3/7/17 9:43 PM, HAA wrote: > > rickman wrote: > >> On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote: > >>> ... > >>> The current pdf says 10 Nov 2014. Either way, release date is unimportant. > >>> What will interest standard supporters is whether there exists a 'Forth 2012 > >>> Standard' they may use and quote. The notice above which appears on the > >>> current pdf would effectively exclude it as a standard. > >> > >> That's funny, it works for me. > > > > It won't work for those expecting a standard. By definition a standard is frozen > > and not subject to change. That's the point of them. > > Not according to ANSI, which *requires* that standards be either > reaffirmed or modified at least every 5 years. I think other standards > organizations have similar rules. But, technically, the 200x group > should call Forth 2012 the doc released under that name, and if there > are any mods the result should be Draft 20xx Standard. That way people > can say "2012 compatible" and mean something. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth I see no contradiction. "reaffirmed" sounds like no technical change. "modified" would require a new date effectively making it a new standard. You haven't commented on the 'draft subject to change' notice in the Forth 2012 doc. I doubt that would be permitted in a 'standard' for the reason you state.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 19:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9q5tm$fjp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55530 |
On 3/8/2017 3:49 AM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> 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 > > I see no contradiction. "reaffirmed" sounds like no technical change. > "modified" would require a new date effectively making it a new standard. > You haven't commented on the 'draft subject to change' notice in the > Forth 2012 doc. I doubt that would be permitted in a 'standard' for the > reason you state. Do you not understand what a draft is??? They didn't bang out the thing in one pass. The draft is one of the final passes, I believe this is the last one before it was approved and final. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 10:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar8.110640@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55525 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>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's what we do (except that the drafts of the next (post-2012)
standard are still called Forth 200x drafts).
>That way people
>can say "2012 compatible" and mean something.
They can.
What makes you think it would be different?
There is certainly a reason why we make a difference between "Forth
2012" and "Forth 200x draft".
BTW, if somebody is working with a document from 2013, it either says
something like "Forth 2012 RC2" on its title page (where "RC" means
"release candidate"), or "Forth-200x Draft ...".
- 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 | 2017-03-08 03:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9ofjk$d21$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55524 |
On 3/8/2017 2:43 AM, 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. I guess that's why standards are never updated... eh? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9p1i0$75l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55524 |
On 3/8/2017 07:43, HAA wrote: > rickman wrote: >> On 3/7/2017 2:20 AM, HAA wrote: >>> ... >>> The current pdf says 10 Nov 2014. Either way, release date is unimportant. >>> What will interest standard supporters is whether there exists a 'Forth 2012 >>> Standard' they may use and quote. The notice above which appears on the >>> current pdf would effectively exclude it as a standard. >> >> That's funny, it works for me. > > It won't work for those expecting a standard. By definition a standard is frozen > and not subject to change. That's the point of them. There will be canonical versions, which is what you might have meant. Standards that work are always on the move; errata, corrections, new material. A frozen no-change standard is of no use to anyone, and that isn't how they are defined, and is not their point. -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 15:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o9p4fd$urb$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #55541 |
In article <o9p1i0$75l$1@dont-email.me>, Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: >There will be canonical versions, which is what you might have meant. >Standards that work are always on the move; errata, corrections, new >material. A frozen no-change standard is of no use to anyone, and that >isn't how they are defined, and is not their point. On the contrary. Being frozen is the essence of a standard. Correction and explanations are only there to make the standard what it should have been in the first place. In fact they are not changes, they are approximations to the elusive platonic standard the writers had in mind but couldn't get on paper. The same applies to releases. If one uses a release of a Forth one doesn't want more than bug-removal, i.e. changes that make the Forth do more exactly what the reference documentation promises. On Android and Windows the user applications are updated all the time without notice. That is detrimental to professional tools, such as compilers. Not everybody seem to understand this. >-- >Alex Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-08 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9p6n8$pel$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55547 |
On 3/8/2017 14:29, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <o9p1i0$75l$1@dont-email.me>, Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> wrote: > >> There will be canonical versions, which is what you might have meant. >> Standards that work are always on the move; errata, corrections, new >> material. A frozen no-change standard is of no use to anyone, and that >> isn't how they are defined, and is not their point. > > On the contrary. Being frozen is the essence of a standard. That's the canonical version to which I referred. > Correction and explanations are only there to make the standard > what it should have been in the first place. > In fact they are not changes, they are approximations to the > elusive platonic standard the writers had in mind but couldn't > get on paper. People seem to have this weird idea about standards aspiring to describe some idealised, frozen, fixed in time, pickled in aspic version of a virtual and perfect world; yet only casting dim and flickering shadows on the back wall of the programmer's cave. They don't do that, since that makes them useless in the real world. We know from experience that they're useful. What the best standards try to describe is what happens in the real world. An example. The IETF NFS work group developed RFC 3530, the standard for NFSv4. Interoperability is vital for NFS servers and clients; this is a critical piece of technology as approx 50% of the file system data in the world is carried on NFS. It was subsequently replaced by RFC 7530 and the changes were considerable, even though they both describe the very same thing. Practise with RFC 3530 demonstrated that the running code (both NFSv4 clients and servers) had deviated from the standard, which had in areas (a) under-described (b) over-proscribed and (c) failed to consider vital corner cases. So much so, that the large number of errata and changes to RFC 3530 forced a new standard. No one demanded that the products based on RFC 3530 change to meet the requirements of the standard. *The NFSv4 standard had to change so it could better describe the real world*. So then; I do wish people would get this "standards stifle innovation because they force me to do things one way as described in 240BC by some Greek philosopher programmer". Standards encourage innovation because they force you to describe *how the damn thing works in real life* and makes it easier for others to develop their products that work and act the same way as yours does. Standards are not frozen by design, nor by intent, nor by any other reason. No-one has need of such things, since they have no value. > > The same applies to releases. If one uses a release of a Forth > one doesn't want more than bug-removal, i.e. changes that > make the Forth do more exactly what the reference documentation > promises. > > On Android and Windows the user applications are updated all > the time without notice. That is detrimental to professional > tools, such as compilers. > Not everybody seem to understand this. That is a completely different issue. > >> -- >> Alex > > Groetjes Albert > -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-07 08:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9lr0n$uco$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55483 |
> > 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. > That doesn't follow. Adoption of a standard by Forth Inc is not a prerequisite for calling it a standard, nor a barrier to others using it. It is more likely that Forth Inc, as a business that is involved in Forth (compilers, tools consulting, development maintenance of products) is tracking the changes to ensure that they understand them, and can influence them to their advantage -- or at least, to make sure that they aren't disadvantaged by them. Many companies do this; I am an observer for a number of standards of interest to my company. Standards take time to be developed and adopted. I have been involved in one where the standard was first ratified in 1989, then updated in 1995. The 1995 version of the standard was very popular, with hundreds of commercial products that provided support for it. Work started immediately on its successor, which was ratified in 2003. It was implemented by a very small number of vendors, and was almost unknown in end user implementations. Work continued to modify & augment it, and another version was ratified in 2010. There were no substantial commercial product implementations until 2011, when 3 major vendors implemented separate and non-interoperating optional parts of the standard. Only now are we seeing any widespread adoption by vendors of interoperable parts of the standard, and end users of products that use it. But users of products based on the 1995 standard still dominate; I reckon there are 10 times as many users of the 1995 standard as of the 2010 update. It's taken 20+ years for NFS to get this far. Should it be any faster for Forth? -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 22:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa1s82$u80$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55485 |
Am Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:31:58 +0000 schrieb Alex:
> It is more likely that Forth Inc, as a business that is involved in
> Forth (compilers, tools consulting, development maintenance of products)
> is tracking the changes to ensure that they understand them, and can
> influence them to their advantage -- or at least, to make sure that they
> aren't disadvantaged by them. Many companies do this; I am an observer
> for a number of standards of interest to my company.
Yes, they do. I must however say that them not implementing the things
they have modified to not hurt them is taking them credibility. When we
went to replace LOCALS| (which nobody used) by { .. }, Forth Inc. vetoed
it into {: .. :}, since they used curly braces for multi-line comments.
And then, they don't implement {: .. :}. The other participants added {:
as alias to the existing } in their implementations. { .. } continues to
be de facto standard (nobody is going to remove it, we need to maintain
compatibility), although Anton now teaches {: .. :}. My point is that as
long as there is no system out there that doesn't treat { .. } and
{: .. :} as synonyms, I don't have to go over my code and change it. We
can just ignore the problems Forth Inc. might have if they would
implement a new standard extension, because we now presume they won't in
any case ;-).
So, please, Forth Inc.: It adds credibility to your efforts in the TC if
you actually implement Forth-2012, especially for your vetos. My feeling
is that the vendors are holding back new things, and a very common theme
is "we need more time". The same vendors who don't implement the things
that are already (with their consensus) in the standard need more time to
evaluate whether other things are useful.
IMHO, we could as well stage the standard procedure for new things (as
opposed to things that have been around for 20+ years, and just nobody
included them in a standard document):
The first stage is the experiment. Those are things currently being
implemented the first time. It can (and will) change, and it doesn't
need a big consensus, here, the right time to present your proposal is
probably the conference following the standard meeting, not the standard
meeting itself.
The second stage then is "in adaption". Progressive implementers have
implemented it, usually resulting in some divergence due to different
implementations. The recognizers are in that stage now, and Matthias
Trute asked me why he should add the trouble of abstracting away some
things that have a straight-forward implementation in amForth, just
because Gforth does it slightly different (and less straight-forward) -
and the answer is simple: Because we are the people who push this
proposal, and if even we aren't happy with it, it's dead.
And the third phase is then "widely adapted", in which case the
documentation is stable.
Fourth phase of a proposal then is "deprecated/replaced by something
else".
This then also makes clear that a standard is not something cast into
stone, but a living process of an API documentation. We are doing
software, not screws and paper sheets.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa1v5d$e0t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55639 |
On 3/11/2017 22:03, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Am Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:31:58 +0000 schrieb Alex:
>> It is more likely that Forth Inc, as a business that is involved in
>> Forth (compilers, tools consulting, development maintenance of products)
>> is tracking the changes to ensure that they understand them, and can
>> influence them to their advantage -- or at least, to make sure that they
>> aren't disadvantaged by them. Many companies do this; I am an observer
>> for a number of standards of interest to my company.
>
> Yes, they do. I must however say that them not implementing the things
> they have modified to not hurt them is taking them credibility. When we
> went to replace LOCALS| (which nobody used) by { .. }, Forth Inc. vetoed
> it into {: .. :}, since they used curly braces for multi-line comments.
>
> And then, they don't implement {: .. :}. The other participants added {:
> as alias to the existing } in their implementations. { .. } continues to
> be de facto standard (nobody is going to remove it, we need to maintain
> compatibility), although Anton now teaches {: .. :}. My point is that as
> long as there is no system out there that doesn't treat { .. } and
> {: .. :} as synonyms, I don't have to go over my code and change it. We
> can just ignore the problems Forth Inc. might have if they would
> implement a new standard extension, because we now presume they won't in
> any case ;-).
>
Well, that's one option, but one in my experience that doesn't always
end up well.
> So, please, Forth Inc.: It adds credibility to your efforts in the TC if
> you actually implement Forth-2012, especially for your vetos. My feeling
> is that the vendors are holding back new things, and a very common theme
> is "we need more time". The same vendors who don't implement the things
> that are already (with their consensus) in the standard need more time to
> evaluate whether other things are useful.
>
> IMHO, we could as well stage the standard procedure for new things (as
> opposed to things that have been around for 20+ years, and just nobody
> included them in a standard document):
>
> The first stage is the experiment. Those are things currently being
> implemented the first time. It can (and will) change, and it doesn't
> need a big consensus, here, the right time to present your proposal is
> probably the conference following the standard meeting, not the standard
> meeting itself.
>
> The second stage then is "in adaption". Progressive implementers have
> implemented it, usually resulting in some divergence due to different
> implementations. The recognizers are in that stage now, and Matthias
> Trute asked me why he should add the trouble of abstracting away some
> things that have a straight-forward implementation in amForth, just
> because Gforth does it slightly different (and less straight-forward) -
> and the answer is simple: Because we are the people who push this
> proposal, and if even we aren't happy with it, it's dead.
Who's "we are the people"? The committee or Gforth maintainers?
>
> And the third phase is then "widely adapted", in which case the
> documentation is stable.
This is the stage at which most standards groups will entertain formal
proposals for discussion & vote, although the content will already have
been prepared & discussed informally during stage 2.
>
> Fourth phase of a proposal then is "deprecated/replaced by something
> else".
>
> This then also makes clear that a standard is not something cast into
> stone, but a living process of an API documentation. We are doing
> software, not screws and paper sheets.
>
This is where I think the process might be a little slow.
--
Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 05:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iMWdndDbKIoIuVjFnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #55639 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> wrote:
> Am Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:31:58 +0000 schrieb Alex:
>> It is more likely that Forth Inc, as a business that is involved in
>> Forth (compilers, tools consulting, development maintenance of
>> products) is tracking the changes to ensure that they understand
>> them, and can influence them to their advantage -- or at least, to
>> make sure that they aren't disadvantaged by them. Many companies do
>> this; I am an observer for a number of standards of interest to my
>> company.
>
> Yes, they do. I must however say that them not implementing the
> things they have modified to not hurt them is taking them
> credibility. When we went to replace LOCALS| (which nobody used) by
> { .. }, Forth Inc. vetoed it into {: .. :}, since they used curly
> braces for multi-line comments.
Forth, Inc could not have done that because they do not have veto
rights. No-one does.
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58c564ca.444317820@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #55682 |
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 05:36:05 -0500, Andrew Haley
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> Yes, they do. I must however say that them not implementing the
>> things they have modified to not hurt them is taking them
>> credibility. When we went to replace LOCALS| (which nobody used) by
>> { .. }, Forth Inc. vetoed it into {: .. :}, since they used curly
>> braces for multi-line comments.
>
>Forth, Inc could not have done that because they do not have veto
>rights. No-one does.
In practice, if the maintainer of a significant implementation says
that s/he is never going to implement that notation because it
breaks code, then committee members are going to look hard for an
acceptable alternative.
That's what happened in this case. I didn't like it, but we got a way
forward. The side effects of Forth Inc adopting a conflicting notation
are still there for Forth Inc.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-12 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e46599c2-f308-4a1f-8b2b-415d1a813232@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55682 |
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:36:10 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> wrote:
> > Am Tue, 07 Mar 2017 08:31:58 +0000 schrieb Alex:
> >> It is more likely that Forth Inc, as a business that is involved in
> >> Forth (compilers, tools consulting, development maintenance of
> >> products) is tracking the changes to ensure that they understand
> >> them, and can influence them to their advantage -- or at least, to
> >> make sure that they aren't disadvantaged by them. Many companies do
> >> this; I am an observer for a number of standards of interest to my
> >> company.
> >
> > Yes, they do. I must however say that them not implementing the
> > things they have modified to not hurt them is taking them
> > credibility. When we went to replace LOCALS| (which nobody used) by
> > { .. }, Forth Inc. vetoed it into {: .. :}, since they used curly
> > braces for multi-line comments.
>
> Forth, Inc could not have done that because they do not have veto
> rights. No-one does.
>
> Andrew.
You are a liar!
Elizabeth Rather appointed all of the committee members. Forth Inc. has veto power over all of the committee members decisions. Also, Forth Inc. has veto power over the committee members themselves --- if they make decisions that disagree with Forth Inc., Elizabeth Rather can remove them from the committee and appoint new committee members who will be more loyal to her.
Elizabeth Rather appointed you to the Forth-200x committee because you worked for Forth Inc. and you were super-loyal to her --- you even taught the novice class at Forth Inc. when Elizabeth Rather wasn't able to do so herself --- your only qualification to be on the Forth-200x committee is that you are a brown-noser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 12:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Mar4.130938@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #55402 |
"HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes:
>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.
As far as the Forth 200x committee is concerned, Forth-2012 is not a
draft, but a finished document (not finished in the way that we don't
continue, however). It's not an ANSI or ISO standard, however, so if
you want that level of officiality, you have to go back to Forth-94
(but then, I think ANSI and ISO consider Forth-94 retired or
something).
- 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 | alex@rivadpm.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 15:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ad38849a-474d-4bf3-8941-6cacc76bdd0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55404 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 12:13:08 PM UTC, Anton Ertl wrote: > "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: > >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. > > As far as the Forth 200x committee is concerned, Forth-2012 is not a > draft, but a finished document (not finished in the way that we don't > continue, however). It's not an ANSI or ISO standard, however, so if > you want that level of officiality, you have to go back to Forth-94 > (but then, I think ANSI and ISO consider Forth-94 retired or > something). > As far as I understand it, INCITS 215-1994 was raffirmed in 2001, 2006, 2011 and again in 2016. The next reaffirmation proposal will open late in 2021. The rules for retirement are contained in this very legalese heavy document; https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2017_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 22:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9i1u2$7rn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55404 |
On 3/4/2017 12:09, Anton Ertl wrote: > "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> writes: >> 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. > > As far as the Forth 200x committee is concerned, Forth-2012 is not a > draft, but a finished document (not finished in the way that we don't > continue, however). It's not an ANSI or ISO standard, however, so if > you want that level of officiality, you have to go back to Forth-94 > (but then, I think ANSI and ISO consider Forth-94 retired or > something). As far as I understand it, INCITS 215-1994 was raffirmed in 2001, 2006, 2011 and again in 2016. The next reaffirmation proposal will open late in 2021. The rules for retirement are contained in this very legalese heavy document; https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2017_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf -- Alex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | julian.fondren@endurance.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 07:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c441266e-fa7f-4a76-8c8f-21a40960bc30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55402 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:36:06 AM UTC-6, 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 are two questions you can ask. The first is "hey is anyone here happy to stick with ANS Forth?" The answer to that is: virtually everyone who isn't already using some alternative Forth-like language. Then there's the second question, which can start much like the first, but which continues "oh btw, I'm an internet crazy person from the Hugh School of Standardization and you're not allowed to say 'yes' to the previous question if you're comfortable with environmental dependencies, or if you ever post code assuming the presence of words outside the standard, like PLACE, or if you ever use return stack manipulation, or--" The difference between these two questions is like the difference, in public polling, between Q. Which of the following best describes your position on abortion? a. Pro-Life a. Pro-Death and: Q. Which of the following best describes your position on abortion? a. Pro-Life b. Pro-Choice c. Anti-Abortion except in certain cases (rape, deformity, etc.) d. You support abortion for eugenic purposes (Swedish parent, etc.) clf gets plenty of bad faith argumentation but this bad faith treatment of other people's opinions is even more annoying. What do you even hope to accomplish? > 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. "oh btw, you're not allowed to say 'yes' to the previous question if you haven't implemented all of Forth-200x." People who still don't use the optional Extended-Character word set? Secretly all heavy users of Retro Forth. Even they haven't told themselves yet. But what else could they be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-11 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa1sn8$u80$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55407 |
Am Sat, 04 Mar 2017 07:23:40 -0800 schrieb julian.fondren: > People who still don't use the optional Extended-Character word set? > Secretly all heavy users of Retro Forth. Even they haven't told > themselves yet. But what else could they be? Hm, Retro doesn't look very standard to me. And you can use the xchar wordset by just using TYPE. Quite often, you don't need the rest. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ* http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-04 07:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <898da5af-aaf7-464b-9741-073cffdb1fa6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55402 |
On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:36:06 AM UTC-6, 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 are two questions you can ask. The first is "hey is anyone here happy to stick with ANS Forth?" The answer to that is: virtually everyone who isn't already using some alternative Forth-like language. Then there's the second question, which can start much like the first, but which continues "oh btw, I'm an internet crazy person from the Hugh School of Standardization and you're not allowed to say 'yes' to the previous question if you're comfortable with environmental dependencies, or if you ever post code assuming the presence of words outside the standard, like PLACE, or if you ever use return stack manipulation, or--" The difference between these two questions is like the difference, in public polling, between Q. Which of the following best describes your position on abortion? a. Pro-Life a. Pro-Death and: Q. Which of the following best describes your position on abortion? a. Pro-Life b. Pro-Choice c. Anti-Abortion except in certain cases (rape, deformity, etc.) d. You support abortion for eugenic purposes (Swedish parent, etc.) clf gets plenty of bad faith argumentation but this bad faith treatment of other people's opinions is even more annoying. What do you even hope to accomplish? > 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. "oh btw, you're not allowed to say 'yes' to the previous question if you haven't implemented all of Forth-200x." People who still don't use the optional Extended-Character word set? Secretly all heavy users of Retro Forth. Even they haven't told themselves yet. But what else could they be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-05 19:10 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o9gh1m$f6l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55408 |
Julian Fondren wrote: > On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 4:36:06 AM UTC-6, 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 are two questions you can ask. > ... 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web